· Private foundation
George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
97% of George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Schwab Charitable Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2021, the last year George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 14 organizations, $31k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| MAYO CLINIC | $2,000 |
| FRIENDS OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS | $2,000 |
| ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL | $2,000 |
| FAMILIES OF SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHY | $2,000 |
| PEACH FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| NEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| KQED | $2,000 |
| ZHI YIN VOCAL MUSIC CENTER | $2,000 |
| WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $1,500 |
| COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY | $1,500 |
| CHINESE CHURCH IN CHRIST DBA CCIC-SJ | $1,000 |
| TZU CHI USA FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK | $1,000 |
| THE NATURE CONSERVANCY | $1,000 |
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 human-services grants (FY20–21, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 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 94% of George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable 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. Read by recipient address, 97% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 4% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 +18% since the first grant, against -28% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2021, 1 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call). Read against FY2021, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION2× · 2020–2021 · $10k · revenue +7%
- NHNEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION3× · 2020–2023 · $6k · revenue +24%
- FOFriends of Children with Special Needs2× · 2020–2021 · $4k · revenue +37%
Funded once
- BCBLOOD CANCER UNITED INCone grant, 2020 · $2k · revenue -28%
- KIKIDRON INTERNATIONAL MISSIONSone grant, 2020 · $500
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.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
City of Hope's mission is to make hope a reality for all touched by cancer and diabetes. PLEASE SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A CONTINUATION OF OUR MISSION
1) Support academic research and talents cultivation in Fudan University. 2) Promote higher education in Fudan University and other educational organizations in China. 3) Strengthen global cooperations of education and research. 4) Enhance…
The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
City of Hope National Medical Center's mission is to make hope a reality for all touched by cancer and diabetes. PLEASE SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A CONTINUATION OF OUR MISSION
The mission of the university of california, irvine foundation (uc irvine foundation) is to raise and manage private funds to support uc irvine's broader mission of excellence in teaching, research and public service. to this end, the uc…
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
The ucla foundation is the giving, receiving, and investing arm of the ucla campus. the foundation enables private donors to help build, sustain and advance one of the world's finest academic and research institutions. private philanthropy…
The samuel waxman cancer research foundation (the "foundation") funds innovative research to bring faster cures to patients. in addition to supporting ongoing collaborative research in specific cancers, our scientists are investigating the…
To produce, in a humanistic tradition, health care professionals and biomedical knowledge that will enhance and extend the quality of life in our communities.
The mission of the mount sinai health system is to provide compassionate patient care with seamless coordination and to advance medicine through unrivaled education, research, and outreach in the many diverse communities we serve.
The foundation's mission is to improve the oral health of all californians by supporting the dental profession and its efforts to meet community needs.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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.
18 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. 18 of the 25 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 DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds BULLIS-PURISSIMA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Friends of Children with Special Needs ↗
- Who funds THE PEACH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
- Who funds MAYO CLINIC ↗
- Who funds FAMILIES OF SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHY DBA CURE SMA ↗
- Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS AND LOS ALTOS HILLS INC ↗
- Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
- Who funds LIVING CLASSROOM ↗
- Who funds Hopes Corner Inc ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds SHIN SHIN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL EYE FOUNDATION ↗
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 · Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation · Analog Devices Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable 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.