Skip to content
George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable Foundation at a glance

· 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.

$31k
Granted FY2021
19
Grants FY2021
7
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

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

12
’20
14
’21
2
’23
3
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Philanthropy$1.5MEducation$70kHealth$24kArts & Culture$6kHuman Services$5kFood & Nutrition$4kEnvironment$2kInternational$1kOther$0
02FY2021 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,500
Median grant
7
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION$5,000
FRIENDS OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS$2,000
NEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION$2,000
ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL$2,000
ZHI YIN VOCAL MUSIC CENTER$2,000
KQED$2,000
FAMILIES OF SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHY$2,000
PEACH FOUNDATION$2,000
MAYO CLINIC$2,000
COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY$1,500
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$1,500
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$1,000
TZU CHI USA FOUNDATION$1,000
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK$1,000
CHINESE CHURCH IN CHRIST DBA CCIC-SJ$1,000
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:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY: $2k → 8%COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY: $2k → 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 94% of George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 97% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 4%.

George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable 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.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$80k · 14 repeat orgs$27k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +17% since the first grant, against -28% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
2

Total granted

$80k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+17%
-28%

Still filing today

86%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’23’24
EducationHealthInternationalArts & CultureHuman ServicesFood & 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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
    2× · 2020–2021 · $10k · revenue +7%
  • KI
    KQED INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $4k · revenue +17%
  • TP
    THE PEACH FOUNDATION
    2× · 2020–2021 · $4k · revenue +4%

Funded once

  • BC
    BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC
    one grant, 2020 · $2k · revenue -28%
  • KI
    KIDRON INTERNATIONAL MISSIONS
    one grant, 2020 · $500
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
Ucsf Foundation Investment Company

The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.

Education
2
City of Hope

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

Health
3
Fudan University Education Development Foundation

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…

Education
4
Silicon Schools Fund Inc

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…

Education
5
City of Hope National Medical Center

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

Health
6
University of California Irvine Foundation

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…

Education
7
The Uc Davis Foundation

The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.

Education
8
Ucla Foundation

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…

Education
9
Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation

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…

—
10
Western University of Health Sciences

To produce, in a humanistic tradition, health care professionals and biomedical knowledge that will enhance and extend the quality of life in our communities.

—
11
Mount Sinai Health System Inc

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.

Human Services
12
California Dental Association Foundation

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.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
12/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $1,483,749 · PhilanthropyDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INCBULLIS-PURISSIMA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $30,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationNEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION: $6,000 · EducationTHE PEACH FOUNDATION: $4,000 · EducationWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $3,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $10,000 · OtherWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY: $10,000 · OtherTZU CHI USA FOUNDATION: $2,000 · OtherSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK: $2,000 · OtherLIVING CLASSROOM: $2,000 · OtherZHI YIN VOCAL MUSIC CENTER INC: $2,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $1,500 · Other+2 more: $1,500 · OtherFriends of Children with Special Needs: $4,000 · HealthMAYO CLINIC: $4,000 · HealthFAMILIES OF SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHY DBA CURE SMA: $4,000 · HealthST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $4,000 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $2,000 · HealthKQED INC: $4,000 · Arts & CultureCOMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS AND LOS ALTOS HILLS INC: $3,000 · Human ServicesHopes Corner Inc: $2,000 · Food & NutritionINTERNATIONAL EYE FOUNDATION: $500 · InternationalSHIN SHIN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $500 · International
Philanthropy$1,483,749Education$53,000Other$31,000Health$18,000Arts & Culture$4,000Human Services$3,000Food & Nutrition$2,000International$1,000

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 budgetDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $1,483,749 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBULLIS-PURISSIMA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetKQED INC: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE PEACH FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFriends of Children with Special Needs: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMAYO CLINIC: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILIES OF SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHY DBA CURE SMA: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS AND LOS ALTOS HILLS INC: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHopes Corner Inc: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetLIVING CLASSROOM: $2,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL EYE FOUNDATION: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHIN SHIN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $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.

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.

Silicon Valley Commun…Los Altos Mountain Vi…Analog Devices Founda…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Paypal Charitable Giv…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA15.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from George C Huang and Margaret J Huang Charitable 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%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 25 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on George C Huang and Margaret J Huang’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