Skip to content
Grace And Shine Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Grace And Shine Foundation Inc

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.

$44k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

International$63kHuman Services$26kPhilanthropy$7kArts & Culture$4kHealth$2kEmployment$200Other$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $19k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
$2,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$9k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Lift Up the Vulnerable$25,000
Garden of Hope$7,000
Chinese American Womens Benevolent Assoc$4,280
Danny DeGennaro Memorial Fouindation$3,000
Fred Hutch Cancer Center$2,000
Asian Future Foundation$1,000
Taiwan Center Inc$800
Individual grant recipient$500
Good Job Angels$200
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 (FY24–25, $12k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Garden of Hope: $5k → 13%Taiwan Center Inc: $800 → 13%Asian Future Foundation: $5k → 17%Asian Future Foundation: $1k → 17%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$96k · 4 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
2

Total granted

$96k
$3k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesInternationalPhilanthropyEducationHealthEmploymentOther
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

  • LU
    LIFT UP THE VULNERABLE INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $63k · revenue +50%
  • GO
    GARDEN OF HOPE INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $19k · revenue -5%
  • CA
    Chinese American Womens Benevolent Association
    2× · 2024–2025 · $7k

Funded once

  • C
    CAPC
    one grant, 2024 · $2k
  • T
    TBAA
    one grant, 2024 · $1k
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
Asian American Advocacy Alliance
Community Improvement
2
Alliance for Asian American Justice Inc

Coordinate pro bono legal aid for victims of anti-Asian violence.

Civil Rights
3
Asian Community Center Inc
Public Benefit
4
Scarsdale Chinese Association Inc
Arts & Culture
5
Taiwanese-American Foundation
—
6
The Asian-American Senior Citizen Association
Human Services
7
Vietnamese American Cultural Alliance
Arts & Culture
8
Florence Fang Family Foundation
International
9
The Luol Deng Foundation
—
10
Center for Advanced China Research
—
11
Vietnamese Buddhist Association Central Valley

provide buddhist service for community

—
12
American International Budhist Association

Religous guidance for the asian community

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Taiwan Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Chinese American Womens Benevolent Association. 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

8 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. 8 of the 11 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
2/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LIFT UP THE VULNERABLE INC: $63,000 · InternationalLIFT UP THE VULNERABLE INCGARDEN OF HOPE INC: $19,050 · Human ServicesGARDEN OF HOPE INCASIAN FUTURE FOUNDATION INC: $6,250 · Human ServicesASIAN FUTURE FOUNDATION INC+1 more: $800 · Human ServicesChinese American Womens Benevolent Association: $7,280 · PhilanthropyCAPC: $2,000 · OtherTBAA: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $500 · OtherDanny Degennaro Memorial Foundation Inc: $3,000 · EducationFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $2,000 · HealthGood Job Angels Inc: $200 · Employment
International$63,000Human Services$26,100Philanthropy$7,280Other$3,500Education$3,000Health$2,000Employment$200

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 budgetLIFT UP THE VULNERABLE INC: $63,000 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetGARDEN OF HOPE INC: $19,050 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetChinese American Womens Benevolent Association: $7,280 over 2y, 13% of budgetDanny Degennaro Memorial Foundation Inc: $3,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $2,000 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Grace And Shine Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Grace And Shine Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Grace And Shine Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Grace And Shine Foundation Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 11 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 Grace And Shine’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