· Private foundation
En-Yong 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $6k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $72k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HEART OF HOPE ASIAN AMERICAN HOSPICE CARE (HHAAHC) | $33,000 |
| FINANCIAL AID TO POOREST OF POOR CANCER PATIENTS REFERRED BY SOCIAL WORKER | $29,249 |
| GEORGE MARK CHILDREN'S HOUSE | $10,000 |
| NEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| FCSN (FRIENDS OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEED) | $500 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $448k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 6% of En-Yong Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +69% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 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, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- HOHeart of Hope Asian American Hospice Care A Nonpr7× · 2017–2023 · $447k · revenue +218% · 30% of their budget
- NHNEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2025 · $325k · revenue +136% · 27% of their budget
- ODOPERATION DAWN2× · 2020–2022 · $2k · revenue +46%
Funded once
- FAFINANCIAL ASSITO POOREST OF POOR CANCER PATIENTREFERRED BY SOCIAL WORKERone grant, 2017 · $69k
- TVTAIPEI VETERANS GENERAL HOSPITAL TWone grant, 2024 · $50k
- TMTHE MEDICI ARCHIVE PROJECT INCone grant, 2019 · $40k · revenue +13%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Overseas Save the Chinese Children Foundation (OSCCF) is a non-profit organization operated by a group of volunteers in US and China. Its purpose is to provide medical, educqational and hygiene interact assistance to children in Chia who…
UFCH is dedicated to providing or facilitating access to critical medical care for Chinas most disadvantaged groups, including orphans, the homeless, abused women, migrants, and other groups in need of care
Providing professional training of Chinese Medicine (TCM), including acupuncture, Chinese herbology, acupressure, Qigong and so on, granting the students Masters degree. Its a three to four years teaching program.
To accomplish its exempt purpose by providing support to the people who suffer cancer.
Provide indenpendent and ojective news reprorting, culture programs that preserve and promote traditional Chinese culture, program that introduce to Chinese people to the best value of the west, current issue of China.
MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Transparent Fish Fund Inc and the most unlike its peers is Shin Shin Educational Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 26 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Heart of Hope Asian American Hospice Care A Nonpr ↗
- Who funds NEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE MEDICI ARCHIVE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds George Mark Childrens Fund ↗
- Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
- Who funds TRANSPARENT FISH FUND INC ↗
- Who funds OPERATION DAWN ↗
- Who funds ROTACARE BAY AREA INC ↗
- Who funds TACCNC ↗
- Who funds SHIN SHIN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Friends of Children with Special Needs ↗
- Who funds DANCING SUN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THESECONDOPINION ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization En-Yong Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Oregon State University Foundation — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to En-Yong Foundation?
Find your warmest path to En-Yong 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.