· Private foundation
The Rubicon Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BELLBROOK-SUGARCREEK COMMUNITY SUPP | $8,500 |
| HOUSE OF BREAD | $8,500 |
| LEARNING TREE FARM | $8,500 |
| EMERGE RECOVERY & TRADE INITIATIVE | $8,500 |
| 4 PAWS FOR ABILITY | $8,500 |
| CHILD CARE CHOICES | $8,500 |
| AGAPE FOR YOUTH INC | $8,500 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Its human-services grants (FY22–24, $68k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- AFAGAPE FOR YOUTH INC3× · 2022–2024 · $26k · revenue +0%
- CCCHILD CARE CHOICESINC3× · 2022–2024 · $26k · revenue +12%
- TLThe Learning Tree Farm Inc2× · 2023–2024 · $17k · revenue +25%
Funded once
- TRTHERAPEUTIC RIDING INSTITUTE INCgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $9k · revenue +52%
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.
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.
Operation of a Facility for training the severely handicapped to increase thier earning capabilities and to increase opportunities for health and wellness.
Sheltered Living Inc supports the efforts of individuals with intellectual disabilities to achieve independence and actively participate in the community.
Provide therapeutic horsemanship to disabled individuals.
To provide traditional and innovative therapies and recreational opportunities for special needs children in an environment that is family-friendly, to include resources and education for the parents/caregivers.
Therapeutic Lessons Lessons to Children with Developmental Disorders
Organized for the purpose of training and employment of persons with disabilities for various jobs.
Our mission is to provide food training and job placement assistance for individuals with disabilities and/or those seeking to overcome life challenges toward successful employment
Serve Developmentally Disabled and their families in a wide array of program settings.
Young Child Assiciates mission is to keep children safe and to support families in the daily care and guidance of their children. Our programs are designed to promote social, academic and personal growth using large and small group…
Care Training of Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
To provide cost-effective residential, social, intellectual, physical and vocational services to individuals with autism in group homes and in home support.
To house, educate, love, counsel, and care for an average of forty-four children, ages 9 - 17, by working closely with their parents in an effort to reunite the family in a healthy, loving, productive unit that functions well.
How this is measured
8 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. 8 of the 9 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
Open a dossier: The Dayton Foundation · Mathile Family Foundation · Dayton Foundation Plus Inc · Iddings Benevolent Trust Xxxxx5009 · Dayton Foundation Depository · The Fred and Alice Wallace Charitable Memorial Foundation · Virginia W Kettering Foundation Xxxxx3003 · Levin Family Foundation · Amazonsmile Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization The Rubicon Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Rubicon Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Rubicon Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Rubicon 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.
Play a game based on Rubicon’s filings →