Skip to content
James S Wong Private Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

James S Wong Private Foundation

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.

$35k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$18k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Crime & Legal$88kFood & Nutrition$39kYouth Development$36kHealth$2k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $18k
$7,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Asian Law Alliance$18,000
YMCA Central San Jose$7,000
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley$5,000
Loaves and Fishes$5,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 1% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Adult Congenital Heart Assoication: $1k → 22%Asian Law Alliance: $18k → 8%Adult Congenital Hart Association: $1k → 22%Asian Law Alliance: $15k → 8%Asian Law Alliance: $15k → 8%Asian Law Alliance: $15k → 8%Asian Law Alliance: $15k → 8%Asian Law Alliance: $10k → 8%YMCA Central San Jose: $7k → 8%YMCA Central San Jose: $7k → 8%YMCA Central San Jose: $7k → 8%YMCA Central San Jose: $5k → 8%YMCA Central San Jose: $5k → 8%YMCA Central San Jose: $5k → 8%Loaves and Fishes: $5k → 8%Loaves and Fishes: $3k → 8%Meals On Wheels The Health Trust: $4k → 8%Meals on Wheels: $4k → 8%Meals On Wheels The Health Trust: $2k → 8%Meals On Wheels The Health Trust: $2k → 8%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$161k · 6 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
1

Total granted

$161k
$4k

Still filing today

67%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Food & NutritionHealthOther
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

  • SC
    SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $88k · revenue +37%
  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY
    6× · 2020–2025 · $19k · revenue +45%
  • AC
    ADULT CONGENITAL HEART ASSOCIATION
    2× · 2020–2021 · $2k · revenue +11%

Funded once

  • MO
    Meals on Wheels
    one grant, 2020 · $4k
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
04the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 7 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
3/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE: $88,000 · OtherSANTA CLARA COUNTY ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEYMCA Central San Jose: $36,000 · OtherYMCA Central San JoseMeals On Wheels The Health Trust: $8,000 · OtherMeals On Wheels The Health TrustLOAVES AND FISHES: $8,000 · OtherLOAVES AND FISHES+1 more: $4,000 · OtherSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $19,000 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARVES…ADULT CONGENITAL HEART ASSOCIATION: $2,000 · Health
Other$144,000Food & Nutrition$19,000Health$2,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSANTA CLARA COUNTY ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE: $88,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetSECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY: $19,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetLOAVES AND FISHES: $8,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetADULT CONGENITAL HEART ASSOCIATION: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% 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 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗
  • Who funds LOAVES AND FISHES ↗
  • Who funds ADULT CONGENITAL HEART ASSOCIATION ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization James S Wong Private Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from James S Wong Private Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 7 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 James S Wong Private’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