Skip to content
Ccyl Chang Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ccyl Chang 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.

$32k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$21k
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, FY2023 to 2025.

Religion$36kEducation$14kInternational$4kHuman Services$2kHealth$500
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k10 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $21k
$500
Median grant
4
States reached
$205k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Orange County Christian Evangelical Church$21,400
RENEWAL FOUNDATION INC$4,600
BLESSINGS CULTURAL MISSION FELLOWSHIP$1,000
Vision Team International$800
CHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION$700
Chinese Christian Herald Crusades$500
St jude children's research hospital$500
Passing On Mission$500
Global Life Enrichment Center$500
Samaritan's Purse$500
China Soul for Christ Foundation$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 (FY23–25, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Chinese Christian Herald Crusades: $500 → 14%Chinese Christian Herald Crusades: $500 → 14%Chinese Christian Herald Crusades: $500 → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$55k · 10 repeat orgs$800 to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +2% since the first grant, against -40% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
1

Total granted

$55k
$300

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+2%
-40%

Still filing today

70%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $500 went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24’25
ReligionEducationHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • RF
    RENEWAL FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $14k · revenue +129%
  • CC
    CHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION
    3× · 2023–2025 · $2k · revenue +2%
  • PO
    Passing On Mission
    3× · 2023–2025 · $2k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • TL
    Touch Life Mission
    one grant, 2023 · $300 · revenue -40%
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
Jessica Yoon Ministries

Spread the Christianity

Religion
2
More International Ministries

To spread the gospel of jesus christ through crusades

Religion
3
Message to All Nations Man

To reach out with the message of the gospel of jesus to the last, least, and the lost

Human Services
4
Asia Us Impact

Religious

Religion
5
Jesus in Vietnam Ministries
Religion
6
Vision for Asia

Christian Ministry Activities

Religion
7
Chinese Christianity Network Tv

The purpose of this organization is to let people know jesus is the son of god, through holy sprit, for those who believe in him will not be perished, but will have everlasting life.

Religion
8
Spirit Invasion Ministries

Spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Religion
9
Vision International Missions

To propagate the gospel of jesus christ; to examine candidates and appoint missionaries. to endorse missionary programs according to standards set forth in the new testament, to establish churches, church schools & mission societies in…

Religion
10
Chinese Christian Fellowship Intl

It is ccf's objective to establish training centers in communities all over the world teaching biblical truth to produce in all who are called to be leaders and participants lives in christ's fullness: 1. study god's word with life…

Religion
11
Chinese Worldwide Gospel Mission

To spread gospel and provide Christianity training to the people in China through volunteer pastors and church elders from the United States.

Religion
12
Discover Your Mission Inc

Supporing missionaries worldwide

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chinese Christian Herald Crusades Inc; the most unlike its peers is China Soul for Christ 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

9 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. 9 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Orange County Christian Evangelical Church: $26,000 · OtherOrange County Christian Evangelical ChurchBLESSINGS CULTURAL MISSION FELLOWSHIP: $3,000 · OtherBLESSINGS CULTURAL MISSION FELLOWSHIPGlobal Life Enrichment Center: $1,500 · OtherRENEWAL FOUNDATION INC: $14,000 · EducationRENEWAL FOUNDATION INCVision Team International: $2,600 · ReligionVision Team Interna…CHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION: $2,400 · ReligionCHINESE CHRISTIAN M…China Soul for Christ Foundation: $1,600 · ReligionChina Soul for Chri…Passing On Mission: $1,500 · ReligionPassing On MissionSamaritan's Purse: $1,300 · ReligionSamaritan's Purse+1 more: $300 · ReligionChinese Christian Herald Crusades: $1,500 · Human ServicesSt jude children's research hospital: $500 · Health
Other$30,500Education$14,000Religion$9,700Human Services$1,500Health$500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRENEWAL FOUNDATION INC: $14,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetVision Team International: $2,600 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION: $2,400 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetChina Soul for Christ Foundation: $1,600 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetChinese Christian Herald Crusades: $1,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPassing On Mission: $1,500 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetSamaritan's Purse: $1,300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSt jude children's research hospital: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTouch Life Mission: $300 over 1y, 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.

Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA7.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Ccyl Chang Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ccyl Chang Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ccyl Chang’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