· Private foundation
Ishida-Winifred Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE | $9,542 |
| ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING | $6,361 |
| THE HANA CENTER | $4,771 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,181 |
| VIETNAMESE ASSOC OF CHICAGO | $3,181 |
| TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO | $1,590 |
| JAPANESE MUTUAL AID SOCIETY | $1,590 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,590 |
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 (FY18–25, $56k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 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.
11 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 25% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k 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
JAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE COMMITTEE8× · 2017–2024 · $50k · revenue +109%- THTHE HANA CENTER6× · 2020–2025 · $26k · revenue +9%
- CJCHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS7× · 2017–2024 · $23k · revenue +159%
Funded once
- TOTransfiguration of Our Lord Catholione grant, 2017 · $2k
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.
The business ("ccba") was established in the 1880s in order to help chinese immigrants in starting a new life in the chicago area. today, ccba conducts a variety of programs that educate chinese immigrants about the us citizenship, promote…
Chicago Andhra Association CAA primary objective is to support development in Andhra Pradesh and celebrate our culture in Chciago area. CAA also actively involved in various local community events.
The Indo-American Center creates and provides services that facilitate South Asian immigrant adjustment, socio-economic wellbeing, and community through direct service, education and advocacy.
Mission is to unite and support the asian american business communities throughout the state of illinois. educational: increase the capacity of asian american and other minority-owned businesses through financial, legal, & strategic…
Ethnic Culture
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Chicago and the most unlike its peers is Chicago Japanese American Historical Society. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 17 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 JAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE COMMITTEE ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds THE HANA CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS ↗
- Who funds VIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS ↗
- Who funds JAPANESE MUTUAL AID SOCIETY OF CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds Tibetan Alliance of Chicago Inc ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds CHINESE AMERICAN SERVICE LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds Asian Improv Arts Midwest ↗
- Who funds CHINESE MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION ↗
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: The Chicago Community Trust · Walder Foundation · Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights · Julian Grace Foundation · Forefront · Lloyd a Fry Foundation · Alphawood Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · Gofundmeorg · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · AbbVie Foundation
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 Ishida-Winifred Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx 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 Ishida-Winifred Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx?
Find your warmest path to Ishida-Winifred Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx 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.