Skip to content
Rhinestone Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Rhinestone Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$111k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Arts & Culture$110kEducation$101kHealth$33kCommunity Improvement$19kReligion$17kHuman Services$16kFood & Nutrition$14kEnvironment$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $11k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OWEN HUGHES FOUNDATION$100,000
ARTSWAVE$5,000
CURE SAN FILIPPO FOUNDATION$3,000
PREGNANCY CENTER PLUS$2,500
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY20–25, $16k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%TALBERT HOUSE: $14k → 16%PREGNANCY CENTER PLUS: $3k → 16%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

47%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$151k · 5 repeat orgs$172k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +49% since the first grant, against -10% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
10

Total granted

$151k
$62k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
-10%

Still filing today

100%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $111k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesArts & CultureEducationCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • UO
    University of Dayton
    3× · 2021–2023 · $100k · revenue +14%
  • GF
    GREENLIGHT FUND INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $19k · revenue +55%
  • CK
    CancerFree KIDS
    3× · 2021–2024 · $16k · revenue +49%

Funded once

  • FF
    FREESTORE FOODBANK INC
    one grant, 2020 · $14k · revenue -10%
  • TH
    TALBERT HOUSEgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $14k · revenue +38%
  • CC
    CINCINNATI CANCER ADVISORS
    one grant, 2024 · $7k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Ucsf Foundation Investment Company

The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.

Education
2
Gastro Intestinal Research Foundation Inc

The GI Research Foundation works to treat, prevent, and cure digestive diseases. In collaboration with the physicians and scientists at the University of Chicago Digestive Diseases Center, we fund innovative clinical and laboratory…

Health
3
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
4
CureCervicalCancer

Dedicated to the early detection and prevention of cervical cancer around the globe for the women who need it most.

International
5
The Center for Medical Technology Policy Inc

To develop a health care system where patients, clinicians, health care policymakers, and payers have the evidence they need to make informed health decisions.

—
6
Beyond Celiac

Beyond celiac unites with patients and partners to drive diagnosis, advance research, and accelerate the discovery of new treatments and a cure.

Health
7
Arbor Research Collaborative for Health

Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…

Health
8
Cystic Fibrosis Research Institute

To fund cystic fibrosis research, provide educational and personal support, and to spread awareness of cystic fibrosis, a life-threatening genetic disease.

Health
9
Cintrifuse

To empower Cincinnati entrepreneurs to launch bold, scalable startups; and we work to improve the odds of those startups growing into transformational companies.

Community Improvement
10
Common Future

Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…

Community Improvement
11
Center for Conflict Resolution

The mission of the organization (ccr) shall be to work with individuals, communities, courts, and other institutions to manage and resolve conflict.

Crime & Legal
12
Corporation for National Research Initiatives

Scientific research in information processing; fostering dev. of nat'l inf. infra.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greenlight Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Pregnancy Center Plus Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 19 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OWEN HUGHES FOUNDATION: $100,000 · OtherOWEN HUGHES FOUNDATIONCINCINNATI CANCER ADVISORS: $7,000 · OtherOCEAN PROGRAMS: $5,000 · OtherDO GOOD MISSIONS: $5,000 · OtherUC HEALTH BARRETT CANCER CENTER: $5,000 · OtherFILM CINCINNATI: $5,000 · OtherUKRAINIAN CONGRESS COMMITTEE OF AMERICA: $5,000 · Other+3 more: $7,000 · OtherUniversity of Dayton: $100,000 · EducationUniversity of DaytonCancerFree KIDS: $16,000 · HealthCure Sanfilippo Foundation: $3,000 · HealthGREENLIGHT FUND INC: $18,500 · Community ImprovementTALBERT HOUSE: $13,500 · Human ServicesPREGNANCY CENTER PLUS INC: $2,500 · Human ServicesFREESTORE FOODBANK INC: $13,500 · Food & NutritionSERENELLI PROJECT INC: $12,000 · ReligionCincinnati Institute of Fine Arts: $5,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$139,000Education$100,000Health$19,000Community Improvement$18,500Human Services$16,000Food & Nutrition$13,500Religion$12,000Arts & Culture$5,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUniversity of Dayton: $100,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGREENLIGHT FUND INC: $18,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCancerFree KIDS: $16,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetFREESTORE FOODBANK INC: $13,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTALBERT HOUSE: $13,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSERENELLI PROJECT INC: $12,000 over 2y, 6.3% of budgetUKRAINIAN CONGRESS COMMITTEE OF AMERICA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCORNERSTONE RENTER EQUITY INC: $4,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The James J and Joan …The Greater Cincinnat…Charities Aid Foundat…Morgan Stanley Global…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The James J and Joan a Gardner Family FoundationOH13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The James J and Joan a Gardner Family Foundation · The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Rhinestone Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rhinestone Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 19 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rhinestone’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home