Skip to content
Ishida-Winifred Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx at a glance

· 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.

$32k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$99kCivil Rights$87kArts & Culture$19kMembership Benefit$14kCommunity Improvement$10kReligion$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,181
Median grant
1
States reached
$724k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE$9,542
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING$6,361
THE HANA CENTER$4,771
VIETNAMESE ASSOC OF CHICAGO$3,181
Individual grant recipient$3,181
TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO$1,590
JAPANESE MUTUAL AID SOCIETY$1,590
Individual grant recipient$1,590
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO INC: $3k → 14%TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO INC: $2k → 14%TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO INC: $2k → 14%TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO: $2k → 14%TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO INC: $2k → 14%TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO INC: $1k → 14%TIBETAN ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO INC: $936 → 14%VIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS: $3k → 14%VIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS: $3k → 14%VIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS: $3k → 14%Chinese Mutual Aid Assoc: $3k → 14%VIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS: $2k → 14%Chinese Mutual Aid Association: $2k → 14%VIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS: $2k → 14%The hana center: $5k → 14%THE HANA CENTER: $5k → 14%THE HANA CENTER: $5k → 14%THE HANA CENTER: $5k → 14%The hana center: $3k → 14%The hana center: $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.
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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$209k · 11 repeat orgs$26k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
1

Total granted

$209k
$2k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 25% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesArts & CultureSocial ScienceCommunity ImprovementMembership BenefitOther
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

  • JAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE COMMITTEE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $50k · revenue +109%
  • TH
    THE HANA CENTER
    6× · 2020–2025 · $26k · revenue +9%
  • CJ
    CHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS
    7× · 2017–2024 · $23k · revenue +159%

Funded once

  • TO
    Transfiguration of Our Lord Catholi
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
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 Asian-American Senior Citizen Association
Human Services
2
Asian American Advocacy Alliance
Community Improvement
3
Chicago Cultural Mile Association
—
4
Japantown Cultural Society
Education
5
Vietnamese American Cultural Alliance
Arts & Culture
6
Greater Chicago Sudanese American a
Community Improvement
7
Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of Chicago

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…

Food & Nutrition
8
Chicago Andhra Association

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.

Arts & Culture
9
Chinese American Womens Benevolent Association
Philanthropy
10
Indo-American Center

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.

Human Services
11
Asian American Chamber of Commerce of Illinois

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…

—
12
Chicago Tamil Sangam

Ethnic Culture

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Chicago; 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.
04the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 17 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
9/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE COMMITTEE: $49,610 · OtherJAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE COMMITTEECHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS: $22,988 · OtherCHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENSJAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE: $9,542 · OtherJAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICEASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING: $6,361 · OtherASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING+4 more: $10,252 · Other+4 moreTHE HANA CENTER: $25,526 · Human ServicesTHE HANA CENTERVIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS: $13,837 · Human ServicesVIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF …Tibetan Alliance of Chicago Inc: $11,509 · Human ServicesTibetan Alliance of Chicag…CHINESE MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION: $5,000 · Human ServicesCHINESE MUTUAL AID ASSOCIA…ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - CHICAGO: $38,175 · Social ScienceASIAN AMERICANS AD…CHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $10,943 · Arts & CultureCHICAGO J…Asian Improv Arts Midwest: $8,246 · Arts & CultureAsian Imp…JAPANESE MUTUAL AID SOCIETY OF CHICAGO: $13,509 · Membership BenefitCHINESE AMERICAN SERVICE LEAGUE INC: $9,500 · Community Improvement
Other$98,753Human Services$55,872Social Science$38,175Arts & Culture$19,189Membership Benefit$13,509Community Improvement$9,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJAPANESE AMERICAN SERVICE COMMITTEE: $49,610 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - CHICAGO: $38,175 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetTHE HANA CENTER: $25,526 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetCHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS: $22,988 over 7y, 6.1% of budgetVIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS: $13,837 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetJAPANESE MUTUAL AID SOCIETY OF CHICAGO: $13,509 over 8y, 4.8% of budgetTibetan Alliance of Chicago Inc: $11,509 over 7y, 7.4% of budgetCHICAGO JAPANESE AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $10,943 over 8y, 42% of budgetCHINESE AMERICAN SERVICE LEAGUE INC: $9,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAsian Improv Arts Midwest: $8,246 over 3y, 0.8% 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 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 ↗

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.

The Chicago Community…Walder FoundationIllinois Coalition fo…Julian Grace Foundati…ForefrontLloyd a Fry FoundationAlphawood FoundationPolk Bros Foundation …GofundmeorgUnited Way of Metropo…John D and Catherine …AbbVie Foundation
The Chicago Community TrustIL19× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Ishida-Winifred Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ishida-Winifred Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 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.

    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 17 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 Ishida-Winifred Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx’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