Skip to content

· Public charity

Chinese-American Planning Council Inc

Cpc's mission is to promote social and economic empowerment of chineseamerican, immigrant and low-income communities.

$215k
Granted FY2023
6
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2023.

Community Improvement$156kHuman Services$77kHousing & Shelter$6k
02FY2023 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $105k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $110k
$45,114
Median grant
1
States reached
$165M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE CHILD CENTER OF NY$60,000
MINKWON CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION INC$50,000
KOREAN COMMUNITY SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN$45,114
ASIAN AMERICANS FOR EQUALITY$20,000
THE RIVER FUND NEW YORK$20,000
QUEENS PUBLIC LIBRARY$20,000
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 (FY20–23, $121k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%THE RIVER FUND NEW YORK: $20k → 13%KOREAN COMMUNITY SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN: $45k → 13%MINKWON CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $50k → 13%MINKWON CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION: $6k → 13%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.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$174k · 4 repeat orgs$65k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +68% since the first grant, against +44% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
2

Total granted

$174k
$65k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+68%
+44%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $65k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’23
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • TC
    THE CHILD CENTER OF NY INC
    2× · 2020–2023 · $66k · revenue +58%
  • MINKWON CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION INC
    2× · 2020–2023 · $56k · revenue +42%
  • AA
    ASIAN AMERICANS FOR EQUALITY INC
    2× · 2020–2023 · $26k · revenue +125%

Funded once

  • KC
    KOREAN COMMUNITY SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $45k · revenue +32%
  • TR
    THE RIVER FUND NEW YORK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +44%
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
04the grantee network

7 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MINKWON CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $56,000 · Human ServicesMINKWON CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION INCKOREAN COMMUNITY SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK INC: $45,114 · Human ServicesKOREAN COMMUNITY SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK INCTHE RIVER FUND NEW YORK INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesTHE RIVER FUND NEW YORK INCTHE CHILD CENTER OF NY INC: $66,000 · OtherTHE CHILD CENTER OF NY INCASIAN AMERICANS FOR EQUALITY INC: $26,000 · OtherASIAN AMERICANS FOR EQUALITY INCTHE QUEENS LIBRARY FOUNDATION INC: $26,000 · OtherTHE QUEENS LIBRARY FOUNDATION INC
Human Services$121,114Other$118,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE CHILD CENTER OF NY INC: $66,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMINKWON CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $56,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetKOREAN COMMUNITY SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK INC: $45,114 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetASIAN AMERICANS FOR EQUALITY INC: $26,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE QUEENS LIBRARY FOUNDATION INC: $26,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetTHE RIVER FUND NEW YORK INC: $20,000 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.

Robin Hood FoundationNY13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Robin Hood Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Chinese-American Planning Council Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chinese-American Planning Council Inc. 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report 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.

    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 6 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $309k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Chinese-American Planning Council’s filings →

    More from the funding graph