Skip to content
Richard C Goldstein Private Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Richard C Goldstein Private Foundation

Its FY2021 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$234k
Granted FY2021
3
Grants FY2021
2
States reached
$78k
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, FY2017 to 2021.

Philanthropy$2.8MInternational$1.7MHealth$1.2MEnvironment$375kCrime & Legal$200kCommunity Improvement$200kHuman Services$150kEducation$100kOther$0
02FY2021 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$78,101
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
The Swaha Foundation$78,102
The Micah Foundation$78,101
Giving Well Foundation$78,101
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 (FY17–18, $250k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 60% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%YouthZone: $100k → 8%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE: $100k → 12%Jewish Family Service: $50k → 12%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NH
WA
MN
NY
MA
CA
CO
NM
DC
FL
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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.2M · 14 repeat orgs$893k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2021, 12 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
4

Total granted

$4.2M
$815k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+28%

Still filing today

79%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 67% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21
HealthPhilanthropyHuman ServicesAnimalsInternationalCrime & LegalOther
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

  • PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $600k · revenue +120%
  • FH
    FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $575k · revenue +27%
  • TS
    The Swaha Foundation
    2× · 2020–2021 · $543k · revenue +17% · 67% of their budget

Funded once

  • GW
    Giving Well Foundation
    one grant, 2020 · $465k
  • MS
    Mind Springs Inc
    one grant, 2018 · $150k
  • RM
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue +28%
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
World Health Foundation
—
2
The Mayer - Rothschild Foundation
Health
3
Annapurna Global Foundation
Philanthropy
4
The Goldman Sachs Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Commons Impact Foundation
Philanthropy
6
The Colorado Health Foundation
Health
7
Global Health Research Foundation
—
8
Rzh Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Foundation for Middle East Peace
Philanthropy
10
The Goldenberg Family Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Satyagraha Foundation
Religion
12
Global United Foundation
International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Movement Strategy Center; the most unlike its peers is The Swaha Foundation. 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

18 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. 18 of the 22 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
16/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Rose Community Foundation: $1,120,000 · PhilanthropyRose Community FoundationThe Swaha Foundation: $542,618 · PhilanthropyThe Swaha FoundationTHE MICAH FOUNDATION: $542,616 · PhilanthropyTHE MICAH FOUNDATIONGIVING WELL FOUNDATION INC: $78,101 · Philanthropy+1 more: $45,000 · PhilanthropyFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $575,000 · OtherFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH…Giving Well Foundation: $464,515 · OtherGiving Well FoundationLINK HANDS FOR HUMANITY: $175,000 · OtherLINK HANDS FOR HUMANITYMind Springs Inc: $150,000 · OtherMind Springs IncTUCK SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: $100,000 · OtherTUCK SCHOOL OF BUSINESSRiver Phoenix Center for Peace Building Inc: $100,000 · OtherRiver Phoenix Center for Peace …MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $200,000 · OtherMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTERINDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK: $100,000 · OtherINDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWOR…PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $600,000 · HealthPARTNERS IN HEALT…Children's Hospital Colorado Foundation: $375,000 · HealthChildren's Hospit…ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $100,000 · HealthROCKY MOUNTAIN PL…AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC: $533,350 · InternationalAMERICAN JEWI…The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $250,000 · InternationalThe American …GREEN AMERICA: $275,000 · AnimalsJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF COLORADO INC: $150,000 · Human ServicesYOUTHZONE INC: $100,000 · Human ServicesROSE ANDOM CENTER INC: $200,000 · Crime & Legal
Philanthropy$2,328,335Other$1,864,515Health$1,075,000International$783,350Animals$275,000Human Services$250,000Crime & Legal$200,000

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 budgetRose Community Foundation: $1,120,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $600,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $575,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetThe Swaha Foundation: $542,618 over 2y, 67% of budgetTHE MICAH FOUNDATION: $542,616 over 2y, 54% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC: $533,350 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetChildren's Hospital Colorado Foundation: $375,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetGREEN AMERICA: $275,000 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetThe American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $250,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetROSE ANDOM CENTER INC: $200,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $200,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF COLORADO INC: $150,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetRiver Phoenix Center for Peace Building Inc: $100,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetGIVING WELL FOUNDATION INC: $78,101 over 1y, 13% of budgetASPEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $45,000 over 1y, 0.6% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 22 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Richard C Goldstein Private’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