Skip to content
J Angel Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

J Angel 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.

$11k
Granted FY2023
2
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2023.

Public Safety & Disaster$178kInternational$163kEducation$115kHuman Services$42kArts & Culture$11kReligion$9kFood & Nutrition$467Health$403Other$0
02FY2023 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k1 grant · $1k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$694k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHINA VILLAGE ORG$10,000
RAMUNION FOUNDATION OF USA$1,000
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.

US giving: 85% of grant dollars ($568k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 15% that went abroad ($101k) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY19–23, $42k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 52% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%ROUNDTABLE ACADEMY: $21k → 14%TRUE LOVE FOR SPECIAL NEED FAMILIES INC: $20k → 9%RAMUNION FOUNDATION OF USA: $1k → 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.

Beyond the US: 15% of all-years giving ($101k)

2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
China$100k · 1 grant
Canada$770 · 3 grants
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 28% of J Angel Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

J Angel Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 15% 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
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
Global Academy Foundation % Walter Link
Philanthropy
2
Think Global Arts Foundation
International
3
Young Global Leadership Foundation

Global education programs

—
4
The Luol Deng Foundation
—
5
The Lijin Guohua Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Global Learning Accelerator
Education
7
Rong Rong Family Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Venus Chinese School
Public Benefit
9
Global Voice
—
10
The Zhaoyu Cultural Foundation
Education
11
International Buddhist Education Foundation
Education
12
Yin Education Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Globalgiving Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Dialogue China Inc. 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

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 20 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FOSUN FOUNDATION: $150,000 · OtherFOSUN FOUNDATIONBEIJING CHUNMIAO CHARITY FOUNDATION: $100,000 · OtherBEIJING CHUNMIAO CHARITY FOUNDATIONRAMUNION FOUNDATION: $78,000 · OtherRAMUNION FOUNDATION+6 more: $11,070 · OtherGIVE2ASIA: $160,530 · InternationalGIVE2ASIA+1 more: $2,500 · InternationalIMAGINATION LAB SCHOOL: $100,000 · EducationIMAGINATION LAB SC…Dialogue China Inc: $10,000 · EducationDialogue China Inc+1 more: $1,000 · EducationROUNDTABLE ACADEMY: $20,720 · Human ServicesTRUE LOVE FOR SPECIAL NEED FAMILIES INC: $20,000 · Human Services+1 more: $1,000 · Human ServicesCHINA VILLAGE ORG: $10,000 · Arts & CultureECLAT FOUNDATION: $4,000 · PhilanthropyCOOL EARTH ACTION USA INC: $200 · Environment
Other$339,070International$163,030Education$111,000Human Services$41,720Arts & Culture$10,000Philanthropy$4,000Environment$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 budgetGIVE2ASIA: $160,530 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetROUNDTABLE ACADEMY: $20,720 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTRUE LOVE FOR SPECIAL NEED FAMILIES INC: $20,000 over 1y, 28% of budgetDialogue China Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetLIFE ACADEMY: $9,000 over 1y, 60% of budgetECLAT FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetGLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVENTURA COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $1,000 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 J Angel Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from J Angel Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%4%15%34%60%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
    1get 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 · 0–5%
    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.

    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 20 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on J Angel’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