· Private foundation
The G Richard and Jane S Thomas Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 65% of THE G RICHARD AND JANE S THOMAS FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $230k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION | $90,000 |
| MIAMI UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $80,000 |
| CINCINNATI THERAPEUTIC RIDING | $60,000 |
| CINCINNATI ZOO | $30,000 |
| DOWN SYNDROME ASSOCIATION OF | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF | $7,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $50k) 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 your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +26% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- CTCINCINNATI THERAPEUTIC RIDING AND HORSEM HORSEMANSHIP9× · 2017–2025 · $384k · revenue +44%
- TUTHE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION5× · 2021–2025 · $254k · revenue +26%
- MUMiami University Foundation5× · 2019–2025 · $145k · revenue +14%
Funded once
- LALIFE ACTION MINISTRIESgraduatedone grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue +36%
- CHCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENTALone grant, 2018 · $20k
- FCFAITHWALK COMMUNITIES OF THEone grant, 2022 · $18k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Elizabeth Seton Housing Corporation provides housing for adults with developmental disabilities who have complex support needs in small residential home environments. The Corporation is operated in connection with the mission of St. Joseph…
Luther home of mercy (lhm) is a ministry enriching lives and individual abilities, serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
For god's love to be expressed for and by individuals with developmental disabilities through faith based programs and services.
To provide housing and a day program for men and women with special needs. these facilities offer activities in a christian setting.
To enable developmentally disabled adults to live in a safe, secure christian environment
To provide elderly or handicapped families and persons on a nonprofit basis, rental housing and related facilities and services.
His will homes provides direct services for mentally impaired individuals.
To provide elderly or handicapped families and persons on a nonprofit basis, rental housing and related facilities and services.
Built on a foundation of compassion and integrity, rhdd is dedicated to supporting individuals with a disability, to live and work in their communities.safe in a family environment, individuals are empowered to achieve personal and…
To provide elderly or handicapped families and persons on a nonprofit basis, rental housing and related facilities and services.
To provide elderly or handicapped families and persons on a nonprofit basis, rental housing and related facilities and services.
To provide elderly or handicapped families and persons on a nonprofit basis, rental housing and related facilities and services.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Joseph Home Inc and the most unlike its peers is Samaritan's Purse. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 26 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds CINCINNATI THERAPEUTIC RIDING AND HORSEM HORSEMANSHIP ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Miami University Foundation ↗
- Who funds KEN ANDERSON ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Mercy Neighborhood Ministries Inc ↗
- Who funds HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF FULTON COUNTY OHIO ↗
- Who funds LIFE ACTION MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds Eternal Bread Ministry ↗
- Who funds Downsyndrome Achieves ↗
- Who funds SAMARITAN'S PURSE ↗
- Who funds ST JOSEPH HOME INC ↗
- Who funds MELODIC CONNECTIONS ↗
- Who funds THE BREWHAUS BAKERY CO ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Spaulding Foundation · Hatton Foundation · Pfau Charitable Foundation · John a Schroth Family Char Tr · The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The G Richard and Jane S Thomas Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The G Richard and Jane S Thomas Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The G Richard and Jane S Thomas Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.