Skip to content
Huang Chen Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Huang Chen Foundation Inc

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.

$293k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
7
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Environment$807kAnimals$450kInternational$375kEducation$144kCrime & Legal$120kSocial Science$100kHealth$60kFood & Nutrition$60kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $6k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $127k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $160k
$26,800
Median grant
7
States reached
$5.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HEALTH IN HARMONY$60,000
RAINFOREST TRUST$50,000
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY$50,000
MONGABAYORG$30,000
CAMBODIAN CHILDREN'S FUND$26,800
NOMI NETWORK$25,000
SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY$25,000
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY$20,000
UWCSEA FOUNDATION$3,000
WORLDVIEW EDUCATION AND CARE$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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–24, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WORLDVIEW EDUCATION & CARE: $5k → 14%WORLDVIEW EDUCATION AND CARE: $3k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
NY
MA
OR
NJ
CA
VA
DE
NM
DC
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 15% of Huang Chen Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 41% of the giving stays in NY; by stated purpose, 37%.

Huang Chen Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 22% directed abroad (not shown)
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.8M · 13 repeat orgs$347k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +57% since the first grant, against +29% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
10

Total granted

$1.8M
$322k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+57%
+29%

Still filing today

77%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalEnvironmentAnimalsHealthCrime & LegalPhilanthropyOther
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

  • RT
    RAINFOREST TRUST
    5× · 2020–2024 · $402k · revenue +54%
  • WC
    Wildlife Conservation Society
    4× · 2020–2024 · $400k · revenue +57%
  • HI
    Health in Harmony
    5× · 2020–2024 · $220k · revenue +270%

Funded once

  • NU
    NYU - US ASIA LAW INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2021 · $100k
  • R2
    RIGHT 2 HEALTH ACTION
    one grant, 2021 · $50k
  • SM
    SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +148%
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
Wildaid Inc

Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.

Animals
2
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…

International
3
International Rivers Network

International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.

Environment
4
Nature and Culture International

Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.

Environment
5
Sustainable World Inc

See schedule o part i for description of the organizations mission.

Environment
6
Nuru International

Nuru is a global collective that enables inclusive and sustainable prosperity by identifying communities at the stability tipping point, strengthening rural livelihoods and market systems, and fostering stabilizing connections that repair…

International
7
Global Forest Generation

Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…

Environment
8
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
9
Sentinel Research

We help the public by foreseeing and reacting to globally impactful and existential catastrophes. We forecast near-term risks, detect black swans earlier, and deploy our emergency response team to take mitigating action.

Public Safety & Disaster
10
NatureServe

NatureServe's mission is to leverage the power of science, data, and technology to guide biodiversity conservation and stewardship. We activate our mission by working with a network of 60+ partners located in states and provinces across…

Environment
11
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
12
Partnersglobal

Partnersglobal (partners) works through a global network to support local leaders and create partnerships that transform conflict, strengthen democratic institutions, and achieve sustainable development.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mongabay Org Corp; the most unlike its peers is Wildlife Conservation Society. 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

16 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. 16 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
11/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RAINFOREST TRUST: $402,000 · InternationalRAINFOREST TRUSTInternational Rescue Committee INC: $160,000 · InternationalInternational Rescue Committee INCGlobal Impact: $80,000 · InternationalGlobal Impact+1 more: $20,000 · InternationalWildlife Conservation Society: $400,000 · AnimalsWildlife Conservation…SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $25,000 · AnimalsSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVA…Individual grant recipient: $120,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipi…NYU - US ASIA LAW INSTITUTE: $100,000 · OtherNYU - US ASIA LAW INSTI…RIGHT 2 HEALTH ACTION: $50,000 · OtherRIGHT 2 HEALTH ACTIONMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES: $25,000 · OtherMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERE…SEA SHEPARD CONSERVATIVE SOCIETY: $25,000 · OtherSEA SHEPARD CONSERVATIV…RIGHT TO HEALTH ACTION: $20,000 · OtherIRC: $20,000 · OtherTHE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC: $60,000 · OtherTHE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE…The Trustees of Princeton University: $24,000 · Other+4 more: $20,000 · OtherHealth in Harmony: $220,000 · HealthHealth in H…MONGABAY ORG CORP: $110,000 · EnvironmentMONGABAY …SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $50,000 · EnvironmentSUSTAINAB…350ORG: $25,000 · Environment350ORGNOMI NETWORK INC: $120,000 · Crime & LegalCambodian Childrens Fund: $115,400 · Philanthropy
International$662,000Animals$425,000Other$464,000Health$220,000Environment$185,000Crime & Legal$120,000Philanthropy$115,400

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 budgetRAINFOREST TRUST: $402,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $400,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetHealth in Harmony: $220,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $160,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNOMI NETWORK INC: $120,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetCambodian Childrens Fund: $115,400 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetMONGABAY ORG CORP: $110,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetGlobal Impact: $80,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC: $60,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budget350ORG: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetThe Trustees of Princeton University: $24,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUnited States Association for UNHCR: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWORLDVIEW EDUCATION AND CARE: $8,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetLUZERNE MUSIC CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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 RAINFOREST TRUST ↗
  • Who funds Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
  • Who funds Health in Harmony ↗
  • Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
  • Who funds NOMI NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds Cambodian Childrens Fund ↗
  • Who funds MONGABAY ORG CORP ↗
  • Who funds Global Impact ↗
  • Who funds THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds 350ORG ↗
  • Who funds SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
  • Who funds United States Association for UNHCR ↗
  • Who funds WORLDVIEW EDUCATION AND CARE ↗
  • Who funds LUZERNE MUSIC CENTER INC ↗

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.

National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Paypal Charitable Giv…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA10.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · 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 Huang Chen Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Huang Chen Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 11%
  • The Trustees of Princeton University: 11% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Huang Chen’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