Skip to content
Freshwind Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Freshwind 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.

$226k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$75k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Religion$1.3MHealth$210kInternational$155kHuman Services$20kArts & Culture$10kEducation$10kFood & Nutrition$2k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $82k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $135k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE CHURCH IN TAIPEI$75,000
ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES$60,000
WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY$30,000
NEHEMIAH INTERNATIONAL SERVICE$12,000
AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST$10,000
AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL$10,000
THE MEDIA EVANGELISM ASSOCIATION US$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
SILVER LINING MISSIONS$3,000
VILLAGE GOSPEL MISSION$3,000
CHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIE$3,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 43% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 9%LIGHT OF SALVATION CHRIDTIAN CHURCH: $10k → 10%THE CHURCH IN BURLINGAME: $30k → 7%HEART OF HOPE ASIAN AMERICAN HOSPIC: $10k → 8%ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $60k → 10%THE CHURCH IN HOUSTON: $10k → 16%AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 6%AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST: $20k → 8%OMF US: $10k → 8%NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY NTUADF: $10k → 7%HEART OF HOPE ASIAN AMERICAN HOSPIC: $10k → 8%ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $60k → 10%AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 6%AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST: $20k → 8%OMF US: $10k → 8%CCIC IN CUPERTINO: $12k → 8%ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $20k → 10%AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 6%AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST: $10k → 8%OMF US: $10k → 8%NEHEMIAH INTERNATIONAL SERVICE: $12k → 8%ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $10k → 10%AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 6%AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST: $10k → 8%NEHEMIAH INTERNATIONAL SERVICE: $12k → 8%ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $10k → 10%AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 6%AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST: $10k → 8%ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $10k → 10%AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 6%ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $10k → 10%AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL: $10k → 6%ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $10k → 10%THE CHURCH IN FREMONT: $102k → 10%THE CHURCH IN FREMONT: $90k → 10%THE CHURCH IN FREMONT: $73k → 10%THE CHURCH IN FREMONT: $70k → 10%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $80k → 8%THE CHURCH IN FREMONT: $30k → 10%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $75k → 8%THE CHURCH IN FREMONT: $27k → 10%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $70k → 8%THE CHURCH IN FREMONT: $25k → 10%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $50k → 8%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $30k → 8%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $30k → 8%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $30k → 8%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $30k → 8%WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $30k → 8%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 55% of Freshwind Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 78% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 39%.

Freshwind Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 14 repeat orgs$130k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +96% since the first grant, against +45% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
16

Total granted

$1.6M
$130k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+96%
+45%

Still filing today

50%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionHealthPhilanthropyFood & NutritionOther
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

  • WB
    WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $425k · revenue +35% · 28% of their budget
  • ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES
    9× · 2017–2025 · $200k · revenue +96%
  • CS
    CHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES
    9× · 2017–2025 · $27k · revenue +73%

Funded once

  • CI
    CHURCH IN BURLINGAME
    one grant, 2018 · $30k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $12k
  • NT
    NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY NTUADF
    one grant, 2020 · $10k
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
Chinese Church Support Ministries Usa Inc

Meet needs inside china through bringing awareness and resources.

Religion
2
Christ to the World Ministries Inc

Proclaim and share the Gospel of Christ in unique ways throughout Asia to reach Christians and non-Christians.

Religion
3
Jesus in Vietnam Ministries
Religion
4
Vision for Asia

Christian Ministry Activities

Religion
5
Silk Wave Mission

SWM Mission is an abbreviation for Silk Wave Mission, and is an organization that serves as a united prayer movement, church planting movement, and missionary church movement for spiritual recovery and revival in Turkey and the Islamic…

Religion
6
China Evangelistic Mission Inc

China Christian Evangelic mission development

Religion
7
China Ministries International Inc

To spread and promote gospel and Christian faith to China

—
8
China Partner

Help churches in china fulfill the great commission through training emerging christian leaders. train leaders in evangelism, evangelistic preaching, pastoral care and leadership through seminaries and bible school in china. distribute…

—
9
Systematic Asian Leadership Trainin

Religious training: to assist the church in asia by training its leaders and equipping them to train others.

Religion
10
Asia Us Impact

Religious

Religion
11
Chinese Worldwide Gospel Mission

To spread gospel and provide Christianity training to the people in China through volunteer pastors and church elders from the United States.

Religion
12
Chinese International Missions Inc

Spreading the gospel to chinese people around the world. preaching the gospel to the chinese people; sending mission workers into various countries; helping churches in the u.s. and abroad with a vision for world evangelism.

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chinese Christian Mission Inc; the most unlike its peers is Second Harvest of Silicon Valley. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

13 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. 13 of the 30 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE CHURCH IN FREMONT: $417,000 · OtherTHE CHURCH IN FREMONTTHE CHURCH IN TAIPEI: $142,000 · OtherTHE CHURCH IN TAIPEINEHEMIAH INTERNATIONAL SERVICE: $77,000 · OtherNEHEMIAH INTERNATIONAL SERVICEAFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED: $75,000 · OtherAFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATEDAMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST: $70,000 · OtherAMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST+13 more: $181,366 · Other+13 moreWORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $425,000 · ReligionWORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETYTHE MEDIA EVANGELISM ASSOCIATION USA: $71,000 · ReligionTHE MEDIA EVANGELISM ASSOCIATION USACHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES: $27,000 · Religion+6 more: $29,000 · ReligionASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $200,000 · HealthASIAN HEALTH …SILVER LINING MISSIONS: $15,000 · PhilanthropySECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $1,500 · Food & Nutrition
Other$962,366Religion$552,000Health$200,000Philanthropy$15,000Food & Nutrition$1,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY: $425,000 over 9y, 28% of budgetASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $200,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetTHE MEDIA EVANGELISM ASSOCIATION USA: $71,000 over 9y, 2.1% of budgetCHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES: $27,000 over 9y, 13% of budgetVILLAGE GOSPEL MISSION: $27,000 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetSILVER LINING MISSIONS: $15,000 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetEUROPE CAMPUS MINISTRY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetLUKE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL MISSION INC: $5,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetCHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTIEN DAO CHRISTIAN MEDIA ASSOCIATION: $4,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: $2,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $1,500 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.

  • Who funds WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds THE MEDIA EVANGELISM ASSOCIATION USA ↗
  • Who funds CHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds VILLAGE GOSPEL MISSION ↗
  • Who funds SILVER LINING MISSIONS ↗
  • Who funds EUROPE CAMPUS MINISTRY ↗
  • Who funds LUKE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL MISSION INC ↗
  • Who funds CHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION INC ↗
  • Who funds TIEN DAO CHRISTIAN MEDIA ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds CITYTEAM MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗

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.

Nehemiah Internationa…Shp Christian Foundat…Nissi FoundationJoshua MissionDonor Advised Charita…Paypal Charitable Giv…Vanguard Charitable E…Natl Christian Charit…Fidelity Investments …American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
Nehemiah International Service Incorporation NisCA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Nehemiah International Service Incorporation Nis · Shp Christian Foundation · Nissi Foundation · Joshua Mission · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Freshwind Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Freshwind Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s 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 · 0–15%
    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 30 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 Freshwind’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