· Private foundation
Ew Orchid Garden Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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 $10k24 grants · $55k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $37k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| National Taiwan University Alumni A | $36,723 |
| Silicon Valley Chinese American Com | $8,800 |
| PCC EDUCATION FUND CORPORATION | $4,500 |
| ALLIANCE CULTURAL FOUNDATION INT'L | $3,600 |
| Nylon Cheng Liberty Foundation | $3,310 |
| JAACUC | $3,300 |
| FUJI ONE FOUNDATION | $3,000 |
| HAWAII INSTITUTION OF INTERDISCIPLI | $3,000 |
| Fujen University Foundation | $2,800 |
| Chinese Music Teachers Association | $2,500 |
| CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS FOUNTATI | $2,400 |
| Chinese American History Society | $2,000 |
| SPRING MUSIC ACADEMY FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| Friends of Children with Special Ne | $2,000 |
| Chinese American Coalition for Comp | $2,000 |
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 US giving — 89% of grant dollars ($324k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 11% that went abroad ($42k) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY20–22, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
Beyond the US — 11% of all-years giving ($42k)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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.
15 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 14 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, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k 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
- FCFIRST CHINESE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH7× · 2017–2025 · $113k
- NTNational Taiwan University Academic3× · 2023–2025 · $42k
- NTNational Taiwan University Alumni A2× · 2023–2025 · $42k
Funded once
- FFCUMCone grant, 2020 · $7k
- YQYAO QI ZONG FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2024 · $6k · revenue +414%
- AIARTCH INCone grant, 2023 · $3k
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.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches and the most unlike its peers is The Alliance Cultural Foundation International. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 46 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 Friends of Children with Special Needs ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds YAO QI ZONG FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PCC Education Fund Corporation ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds FU-JEN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE ALLIANCE CULTURAL FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds SPRING MUSIC ACADEMY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LUKE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL MISSION INC ↗
- Who funds SF Don Sir Charity Fund ↗
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: Jou & Family Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Ew Orchid Garden 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.
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.