· Private foundation
Icare Philanthropic 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k30 grants · $35k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $56k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WISH OF ANGELS MISSIONS | $35,000 |
| St MARKS LUTHERAN SCHOOL | $21,300 |
| AUTISM HOSPITALITY FDN | $5,000 |
| CHINESE AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIO | $4,980 |
| CA YUAN YUNG BUDDHISM CENTER | $3,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,000 |
| Tzu Chi Foundation | $3,000 |
| GFCBWSCC | $2,025 |
| HK Schools Alumni Federation Founda | $2,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,200 |
| S CA Taiwanese American Emergency A | $1,000 |
| MORNING LIGHT FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| MP PRAJNA BUDDHIST MISSION | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $800 |
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 (FY18–24, $57k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
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.
31 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down; 18 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
- ELEAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE FOUNDATION5× · 2018–2024 · $11k · revenue +23%
- CICALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY2× · 2017–2019 · $9k · revenue +35%
- CCCHINESE CLUB OF SAN MARINO4× · 2020–2024 · $6k · revenue +129%
Funded once
- MCMINI CAREone grant, 2022 · $80k
- SGSAN GABRIEL COUNTRY CLUBgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +45%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $10k
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.
Providing professional training of Chinese Medicine (TCM), including acupuncture, Chinese herbology, acupressure, Qigong and so on, granting the students Masters degree. Its a three to four years teaching program.
The mission of the organization is to promote and encourage the development of the chinese-american business community througout the greater los angeles area, to serve as an advocate of the chinese business community, to provide a forum…
The san fernando valley chinese cultural association (sfvcca) is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the preservation and celebration of the splendors of chinese civilization. sfvcca is deeply committed to promoting nutual…
To promote, propagate and perpetuate chinese language and culture to assist and guide member chinese schools for their betterment to encourage cooperation and to facilitate the interchange of ideas and experiences among member chinese…
Provide Chinese Culture and Help to Advance social, economic well-being of Chinese American at Monterey Bay, California.
To preserve and promote chinese cultures. there are more than 1000 people who visit the center annually in addition to being open to school field trips. no admission charged.
Torrance Chinese School is a non-profit, non-religious and non-political educational institution which provides a friendly environment for students who are interested in learning the Chinese language. The school offers classes not only for…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Taiwan Center Foundation of Greater Los Angeles and the most unlike its peers is Charles J Soong Memorial Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 26 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 16% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
35 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. 35 of the 148 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 WISH OF ANGEL'S MISSIONS ↗
- Who funds BUDDHIST TZU CHI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SAN GABRIEL COUNTRY CLUB ↗
- Who funds EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BUDDHIST TZU CHI EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds MORNING LIGHT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHINESE CLUB OF SAN MARINO ↗
- Who funds MP PRAJNA BUDDHIST MISSION INC ↗
- Who funds MHG CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GO AND LOVE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LINCOLN TRANING CENTER AND REHABILITATION WORKSHOP ↗
- Who funds Pasadena Showcase House For The Arts ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP 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: Grace and Li Yu Family Foundation · Wish of Angel's Missions · MY Charitable Foundation · Asian Pacific Community Fund of Southern California · Hong W Moy Foundation · Sean and Christine Yu Private Foundation · Cathay Bank Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · California Community Foundation · The Ahmanson Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation
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 Icare Philanthropic 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Icare Philanthropic Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Icare Philanthropic Foundation 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.