Skip to content
Goshen Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Goshen 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.

$24k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$93kHuman Services$18kYouth Development$16kEducation$6kInternational$5kArts & Culture$4kHealth$3kAnimals$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k9 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$1,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$123k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GRACE GOSPEL CHRISTIAN CHURCH$10,000
TRI VALLEY CHRISTIAN CHURCH$4,000
ABUNDANT CENTER$3,000
ALLIANCE CULTURAL FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL$2,000
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY$1,000
TRANSFORMING LIVES TRAINING INSTIT$1,000
FOUNDATION OF JOY PRAYER CHURCH$1,000
CRYSTAL SPRINGS UPLANDS SCHOOL$500
PARCA$500
MENLO CHURCH$500
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 (FY20–24, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, 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%ABUNDANT CENTER: $3k → 10%ABUNDANT CENTER: $3k → 10%ABUNDANT CENTER: $3k → 10%ABUNDANT CENTER: $3k → 10%ABUNDANT CENTER: $3k → 10%POP'S FOUNDATION: $2k → 10%POP'S FOUNDATION: $1k → 10%POP'S FOUNDATION: $1k → 10%POP'S FOUNDATION: $1k → 10%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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$120k · 13 repeat orgs$23k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
13

Total granted

$120k
$20k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+57%
+96%

Still filing today

38%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesAnimalsHealthArts & CultureReligionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • AC
    ABUNDANT CENTER
    5× · 2020–2024 · $15k · revenue +57%
  • CS
    CHINA SOUL FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION
    3× · 2017–2021 · $15k · revenue +167%
  • OR
    OVERSEAS RADIO AND TELEVISION INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $7k · revenue +64%

Funded once

  • FO
    FOUNTAIN OF JOY PRAYER CHURCH
    one grant, 2017 · $8k
  • AL
    ABUNDANT LIVING FAITH CENTER CHURCH INC
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
  • ASIAN HEALTH SERVICESgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +96%
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
The Zhaoyu Cultural Foundation
Education
2
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Foundation of America (Sjtufa)
Education
3
Hong Tao Tze Foundation
Human Services
4
Shoucheng Zhang Foundation
Education
5
Foundation for Chinese Cultural Heritage
Philanthropy
6
Sangwan Family Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Center for Advanced China Research
—
8
San Francisco Art Studio Foundation
—
9
Sfs Foundation
Human Services
10
Sutter Bay Hospitals

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,…

Health
11
Zhiyuan Yining Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation

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,…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mills-Peninsula Hospital Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Love Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
11/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GRACE GOSPEL CHRISTIAN CHURCH: $40,000 · OtherGRACE GOSPEL CHRISTIAN CHURCHTRI-VALLEY CHRISTIAN CHURCH: $11,000 · OtherTRI-VALLEY CHRISTIAN CHURCHFOUNDATION OF JOY PRAYER CHURCH: $8,000 · OtherFOUNDATION OF JOY PRAYER CHURCHFOUNTAIN OF JOY PRAYER CHURCH: $8,000 · OtherFOUNTAIN OF JOY PRAYER CHURCHTRANSFORMING LIVES TRAINING INSTITU: $6,000 · OtherTRANSFORMING LIVES TRAINING INSTITUTRANSFORMING LIVES TRAINING INSTITUTE: $6,000 · OtherTRANSFORMING LIVES TRAINING INSTITUTETRANSFORMING LIVES TRAINING INSTIT: $4,000 · Other+14 more: $13,700 · Other+14 moreABUNDANT CENTER: $15,000 · Human ServicesABUNDANT CENTERPOPS FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Human ServicesPOPS FOUNDATIONCHINA SOUL FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION: $15,000 · ReligionCHINA SOUL …OVERSEAS RADIO AND TELEVISION INC: $7,000 · Arts & CultureTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $5,000 · EducationCRYSTAL SPRINGS UPLANDS SCHOOL: $500 · EducationTHE ALLIANCE CULTURAL FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL: $2,000 · InternationalASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $1,500 · HealthMILLS-PENINSULA HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $200 · Health
Other$96,700Human Services$20,000Religion$15,000Arts & Culture$7,000Education$5,500International$2,000Health$1,700

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 budgetABUNDANT CENTER: $15,000 over 5y, 2.1% of budgetCHINA SOUL FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetOVERSEAS RADIO AND TELEVISION INC: $7,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $5,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetPOPS FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ALLIANCE CULTURAL FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAMARITAN HOUSE: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMUTTVILLE: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCRYSTAL SPRINGS UPLANDS SCHOOL: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMILLS-PENINSULA HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $200 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 ABUNDANT CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CHINA SOUL FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OVERSEAS RADIO AND TELEVISION INC ↗
  • Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds POPS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds THE ALLIANCE CULTURAL FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds SAMARITAN HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds SAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds MUTTVILLE ↗
  • Who funds LOVE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CRYSTAL SPRINGS UPLANDS SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds MILLS-PENINSULA HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN8.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Goshen Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Goshen Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–20%
    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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Goshen’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