Skip to content
C & S Tan Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

C & S Tan Family Foundation

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.

$93k
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2023 to 2024.

Religion$77kEducation$10kHuman Services$5kYouth Development$3kRecreation & Sports$2k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k11 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
$3,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$232k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
EUROPE CAMPUS MINISTRY$60,000
LIFE LIGHT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION$10,000
SADDLEBACK VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH$6,000
KERITH RAVINE MINISTRY$3,000
GLORY LUTHERAN CHURCH$3,000
Palos Verdes Peninsula High$3,000
CHINESE OUTREACH$3,000
RIDGECREST INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL BOOSTER CLUB INC$1,500
FRESH LIFE CHRISTIAN CHURCH$1,000
SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER$800
FAMILY KEEPERS INC$700
CHINA EVANGELICAL SEMINARY NORTH AMERICA -CESNA-$500
Palos Verdes Peninsula High$200
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 (FY24–24, $800) 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.

area typical 12%SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER: $800 → 14%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 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
Evangelical Chinese Gospel Mission Inc

Charitable, religious & educational

Religion
2
China Evangelistic Mission Inc

China Christian Evangelic mission development

Religion
3
Chinese Neighborhood Covenant Church Inc

Church

Religion
4
Chinese Church Support Ministries Usa Inc

Meet needs inside china through bringing awareness and resources.

Religion
5
China Soul for Christ Foundation
Religion
6
Vision for Asia

Christian Ministry Activities

Religion
7
China Partner

Help churches in china fulfill the great commission through training emerging christian leaders. train leaders in evangelism, evangelistic preaching, pastoral care and leadership through seminaries and bible school in china. distribute…

—
8
Grace Bridge for Christ Ministry

Grace Bridge for Christ Ministry exists to REACH people with the Gospel, EQUIP believers for effective service,SEND OUT disciples to impact the world, and NETWORK with local churches and other mission agencies in unity to fulfill the Great…

Religion
9
Love China Ministries International

The mission of Love China Ministries International (LCMI) is to build up the Body of Christ (His Church) throughout the world by all legal available means. Love China's major priority was to the House Church Movement in the People's…

Religion
10
Campus Evangelistic Fellowship

The vision of Campus Evangelistic Fellowship (CEF) is to reach out to these Chinese students on campus. Our goal is to love, care for, share the gospel with, and ultimately disciple them to be future Christian leaders. On a weekly basis,…

Religion
11
China Training Network

To Train Christian Leaders and Plant Churches in China

—
12
East West Christian Outreach Inc

Christian ministry in u.s. and asia

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is China Evangelical Seminary North America; the most unlike its peers is South Bay Community Resource Center. 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

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 12 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)
7/8
Grantees still filing
2/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EUROPE CAMPUS MINISTRY: $60,000 · ReligionEUROPE CAMPUS MINISTRYFAMILY KEEPERS INC: $3,700 · ReligionKerith Ravine Ministry: $3,000 · ReligionCHINESE OUTREACH: $3,000 · Religion+1 more: $500 · ReligionSADDLEBACK VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH: $6,000 · OtherSADDLEBACK VALL…Palos Verdes Peninsula High: $3,200 · OtherPalos Verdes Pe…GLORY LUTHERAN CHURCH: $3,000 · OtherGLORY LUTHERAN …FRESH LIFE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: $1,000 · OtherFRESH LIFE CHRI…LIFE LIGHT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationLIFE LIGHT ED…RIDGECREST INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL BOOSTER CLUB INC: $1,500 · EducationRIDGECREST IN…SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER: $800 · Human Services
Religion$70,200Other$13,200Education$11,500Human Services$800

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEUROPE CAMPUS MINISTRY: $60,000 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetLIFE LIGHT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetFAMILY KEEPERS INC: $3,700 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetKerith Ravine Ministry: $3,000 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetCHINESE OUTREACH: $3,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetRIDGECREST INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL BOOSTER CLUB INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCHINA EVANGELICAL SEMINARY NORTH AMERICA: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

MY Charitable Foundat…Natl Christian Charit…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
MY Charitable FoundationDE13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: MY Charitable Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn 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 C & S Tan Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from C & S Tan Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 12 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on C & S Tan Family’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