Skip to content

· Private foundation

Eastbridge 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.

$28k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Community Improvement$19kHealth$18kArts & Culture$9kPhilanthropy$952Crime & Legal$129Human Services$113Civil Rights$104Education$100Other$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
$5,010
Median grant
1
States reached
$361k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Chinese-American Planning Council$11,408
Chinatown Health Clinic$6,010
Parent Child Relationship Associati$5,010
Charles B Wang Community Health Cen$5,000
Asian American Federation$113
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, $19k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%Asian American Federation: $113 → 17%Chinese-American Planning Council: $11k → 17%Chinese-American Planning Council: $6k → 17%Chinese American Planning Council: $2k → 17%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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$36k · 3 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +45% since the first grant, against -36% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$36k
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
-36%

Still filing today

67%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesArts & CulturePhilanthropyHealthCivil RightsEducationOther
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

  • CP
    CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $19k · revenue -14%
  • PC
    Parent Child Relationship Association Inc
    3× · 2023–2025 · $9k · revenue +45%
  • CH
    Chinatown Health Clinic
    2× · 2024–2025 · $8k

Funded once

  • AP
    Asian Pacific Island American Healt
    one grant, 2024 · $3k
  • CH
    CHINATOWN HEALTH CLINIC FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2023 · $2k · revenue +11%
  • AA
    Asian American Legal Defense Fd
    one grant, 2021 · $129
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
Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation

The corporation's mission includes, but is not limited to, combatingcommunity deterioration within chinatown; preserving and developingthe chinatown community; leading the community in neighborhoodplanning, considering land use, and…

Community Improvement
2
Association of Chinese American Physicians Usa Inc

To foster programs that enable physicians to form a professional community in the practice of medicine, provide opportunities for physicians to participate in the governance and decision-making of health care policies that affect the…

Education
3
New York College of Traditional Chinese Medicine

To offer postsecondary education in acupuncture and chinese herbal medicine

Education
4
Chinese Community Center Inc

The chinese community center's mission is to bridge east & west by enriching families with educational, cultural, and social programs.

Human Services
5
Physician Affiliate Group of New York Pc

To provide accountable, responsive quality care with the highest degree of sensitivity to the needs of our diverse, multilingual population while fulfilling the professional and educational needs of our members.

Health
6
The Asian Americans for Community Involvement of Santa Clara County Inc

To strengthen the resilience and hope of our diverse community members by improving their health and well-being.

Health
7
New York Downtown Hospital Chinese Community Partnership for Health Foundat Ion Inc

To broaden health care access, provide educational opportunities and services with a professional health team in a culturally sensitive fashion to the chinese population in the community. its objective is to meet the unmet healthcare needs…

Health
8
Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

Ajsocal is a social justice organization that protects and strengthens the rights and dignity of asian american and pacific islander (aapi) communities, especially those that are most disadvantaged.

Crime & Legal
9
New York Asian Women's Center Inc

Womankind uses the multidimensionality of its asian heritage to work alongside survivors of gender-based violence as they build a path to healing.

—
10
Community Health Center of Richmond Inc

The organization's mission is to sustain a vibrant, healthy and strong community through affordable, culturally competent, quality primary health care.

Health
11
Asian Pacific Health Care Venture Inc

Asian Pacific Health Care Venture, Inc. is a family of community health centers whose mission is to be the medical home for our patients by providing personalized, quality health care services in a culturally accessible manner.

—
12
Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence Inc

CAAAV was founded in 1986 as one of the first groups in the United States to respond to racially motivated violence against Asians. Since then, CAAAV has broaden its focus to address a wide array of needs and challenges facing the Asian…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chinese-American Planning Council Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Trustees of Princeton University. 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 13 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL INC: $19,176 · Human ServicesCHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL INC+1 more: $113 · Human ServicesChinatown Health Clinic: $8,030 · OtherChinatown Health ClinicAsian Pacific Island American Healt: $2,500 · OtherAsian Pacific Island America…NORTH STAR FUND INC: $952 · OtherNORTH STAR FUND INC+3 more: $255 · OtherParent Child Relationship Association Inc: $8,910 · Arts & CultureParent Child Relation…CHARLES B WANG COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC: $5,000 · HealthCHARLES B WA…CHINATOWN HEALTH CLINIC FOUNDATION INC: $2,010 · PhilanthropyASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - AAJC INC: $104 · Civil RightsThe Trustees of Princeton University: $100 · Education
Human Services$19,289Other$11,737Arts & Culture$8,910Health$5,000Philanthropy$2,010Civil Rights$104Education$100

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 budgetCHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL INC: $19,176 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetParent Child Relationship Association Inc: $8,910 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetCHINATOWN HEALTH CLINIC FOUNDATION INC: $2,010 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNORTH STAR FUND INC: $952 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN FEDERATION INC: $113 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - AAJC INC: $104 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Trustees of Princeton University: $100 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Eastbridge Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Eastbridge 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 11%
  • The Trustees of Princeton University: 11% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report 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 13 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 Eastbridge’s filings →

More from the funding graph