· Private foundation
Chennault Council for International
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $12k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $41k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GIVE2ASIA | $20,500 |
| THE ELLING O EIDE CHARITABLE FOUNDA | $20,000 |
| WALTER REED NATIONAL MILITARY MEDIC | $9,500 |
| ASIAN AMERICAN JOURNALISTS ASSOCIAT | $2,908 |
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 (FY21–21, $30k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 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
Where the work is directed
The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.
About 17% of Chennault Council for International’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +36% since the first grant, against -23% for those funded once.
7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 2 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, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- ACAmerican Chinese School Inc4× · 2017–2021 · $89k · revenue -10%
- WRWALTER REED NATIONAL MILITARY MEDICAL CENTER7× · 2017–2024 · $52k
- EOELLING O EIDE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION2× · 2024–2025 · $40k · revenue 0%
Funded once
- CACivil Air Transprot Associationone grant, 2022 · $79k
- WYWASHINGTON YU YING PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $39k · revenue +77%
- GPGlobal Primary Care Incone grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue -49% · 31% of their budget
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.
naisA Global is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization dedicated to helping talented young Asian professionals unlock their potential and become great leaders. It is the only non-profit of its kind to provide a global platform to…
A non-profit dedicated to the advancement of the field of Asian Studies through international exchange, networking, publication, research support and career development.
Education Institute
To facilitate understanding and communication between the U.S. and Asia by educating congressional members and staff; diplomats; and others from business, government, and academia through people-to-people exchanges, off-the-record…
To support peking university's long-term development and to promote the u.s.-china exchanges.
The Organization is a Christian development organization that provides love, hope, and opportunity to children with disabilities and strives to end abandonment by keeping families together. To accomplish this mission, the Organization…
To promote democracy in asia.
How this is measured
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 18 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.
- Who funds GIVE2ASIA ↗
- Who funds American Chinese School Inc ↗
- Who funds ELLING O EIDE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON YU YING PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds Global Primary Care Inc ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICAN JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Coordination Council of Chinese American Association ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.
Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Chennault Council for International funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chennault Council for International. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Chennault Council for International?
Find your warmest path to Chennault Council for International 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 Chennault Council for International’s filings →