Skip to content
Chin-Oyung Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Chin-Oyung 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.

$20k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$45kRecreation & Sports$10kHuman Services$10kArts & Culture$250Health$225Housing & Shelter$53
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $70
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$25k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Dancing with the Elephant$10,000
The Ground up Foundation$10,000
The Soar Foundation$70
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 (FY21–25, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SAN FRANCISCO CITY GUIDES: $250 → 10%Dancing with the Elephant: $10k → 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
Uc Chinese Alumni Foundation
—
2
Shoucheng Zhang Foundation
Education
3
San Francisco Guzheng Music Society
Arts & Culture
4
Foundation for Chinese Cultural Heritage
Philanthropy
5
The Lijin Guohua Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Foundation of America (Sjtufa)
Education
7
The Luol Deng Foundation
—
8
Sangwan Family Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Fudan Fuzhong Overseas Foundationinc

Fudan Fuzhong Overseas Foundation, Inc. ("FFOF") was established by five alumni from Fudan Fuzhong, the high school affiliated with Fudan University in Shanghai, China. Fudan University is one of the leading institutes of higher education…

Education
10
Stanbridge University Foundation
Education
11
Shanghai Sonatas Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Helen Gee Chin Scholarship Foundationc/O Calvin Chin Trustee

The helen gee chin scholarshup foundation was founded to honor the memory of helen g. chin, wife of sifu chin of calvin chin's martial arts academy, inc. (ccmaa) the scholarhip is open to any student who is enrolled full- time as a college…

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Peach Foundation; the most unlike its peers is San Francisco City Guides. 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE PEACH FOUNDATION: $41,372 · EducationTHE PEACH FOUNDATIONTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $3,500 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY+1 more: $70 · EducationDANCING WITH THE ELEPHANT: $10,000 · Human ServicesDANCING WITH THE …+1 more: $250 · Human ServicesTHE GROUND UP FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsTHE GROUND UP FOU…CHINESE CANCER MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $225 · PhilanthropyLIVE 4 EVAN INC: $53 · Philanthropy
Education$44,942Human Services$10,250Recreation & Sports$10,000Philanthropy$278

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE PEACH FOUNDATION: $41,372 over 8y, 1.3% of budgetDANCING WITH THE ELEPHANT: $10,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $3,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHINESE CANCER MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $225 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLIVE 4 EVAN INC: $53 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.

American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Chin-Oyung Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chin-Oyung Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–20%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Chin-Oyung Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Chin-Oyung Family 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.

    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 8 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 Chin-Oyung 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