Skip to content
Jin and Xiaqing Wu Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Jin and Xiaqing Wu Family 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.

$128k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$58k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$331kEducation$3kEnvironment$2kCommunity Improvement$2kHealth$400Public Safety & Disaster$200Arts & Culture$200Recreation & Sports$100
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $3k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $67k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $58k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Living Water Chinese Christian Chur$58,000
Asia Christian Training Service$47,000
The Home of Christ Church$20,000
Ambassador Leadership Incubator Ltd$2,000
Hillsborough Beautification Foundat$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.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $200) 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $200 → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$330k · 7 repeat orgs$8k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
11

Total granted

$330k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+33%

Still filing today

43%
45%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
EducationReligionHuman ServicesEnvironmentHealthRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • LW
    Living Water Chinese Christian Chur
    9× · 2017–2025 · $228k
  • AC
    ASIA CHRISTIAN TRAINING SERVICE
    8× · 2018–2025 · $68k · revenue +48%
  • HO
    HOME OF CHRIST CHURCH
    3× · 2023–2025 · $29k

Funded once

  • AC
    ASIAN CHRISTIAN TRANSFORMATION SOCI
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
  • FH
    FIFTH HOME OF CHRIST CHURCH
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
  • TT
    THE TIMOTHY INITIATIVE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $500 · revenue +23%
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
Heart Bridge International

Heart Bridge International exists to equip and empower Christians around the world to fulfill the Great Commission. The organization provides free ministry training, discipleship resources, and practical coaching to under-resourced…

Religion
2
China Soul for Christ Foundation
Religion
3
Asia Us Impact

Religious

Religion
4
Nevertheless Missions Frmly Broken Pillars

OUR ORGANIZATION EXISTS TO TAKE THE MESSAGE OF THE RISEN SON TO THE LAND OF THE RISING SUN AND BEYOND. OUR ORGANIZATION HELPS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CHURCH GROWTH AND CHURCH STARTS. OUR ORGANIZATION EXISTS TO PROVIDE SHORT TERM RELIEF FOR…

Religion
5
Systematic Asian Leadership Trainin

Religious training: to assist the church in asia by training its leaders and equipping them to train others.

Religion
6
More International Ministries

To spread the gospel of jesus christ through crusades

Religion
7
Christian Team Ministries Inc

Religious and charitable

Religion
8
Jesus in Vietnam Ministries
Religion
9
Vision for Asia

Christian Ministry Activities

Religion
10
Da Los Angeles Church Network

To assist small Chinese churches in growth, breakthrough, and support ministers financially; to advance God's kingdom ministry via multimedia.

Religion
11
Making Jesus Known Evangelistic Ministries

Preaching the message of Jesus Christ around the world through large events.

—
12
Abg Ministries
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Youth Soccer Organization; the most unlike its peers is Hillsborough Beautification Foundation. 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

9 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. 9 of the 19 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Living Water Chinese Christian Chur: $228,010 · OtherLiving Water Chinese Christian ChurHOME OF CHRIST CHURCH: $28,500 · OtherHOME OF CHRIST CHURCH+8 more: $6,950 · OtherASIA CHRISTIAN TRAINING SERVICE: $68,300 · EducationASIA CHRISTIAN TRAINING…+2 more: $2,200 · EducationHILLSBOROUGH BEAUTIFICATION FOUNDATION: $2,000 · EnvironmentSHOWERS OF BLESSING EVANGELISTIC MINISTRY USA: $1,300 · ReligionTHE TIMOTHY INITIATIVE INC: $500 · ReligionSUPER JOEY FOUNDATION CORPORATION: $200 · HealthAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $200 · Human ServicesAMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION: $100 · Recreation & Sports
Other$263,460Education$70,500Environment$2,000Religion$1,800Health$200Human Services$200Recreation & Sports$100

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 budgetASIA CHRISTIAN TRAINING SERVICE: $68,300 over 8y, 3.1% of budgetHILLSBOROUGH BEAUTIFICATION FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSHOWERS OF BLESSING EVANGELISTIC MINISTRY USA: $1,300 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE TIMOTHY INITIATIVE INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHOPKINS BAND AND ORCHESTRA BOOSTERS: $200 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION: $100 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.

Analog Devices Founda…AbbVie FoundationAmerican Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Analog Devices FoundationMA13.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Analog Devices Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Jin and Xiaqing Wu Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jin and Xiaqing Wu Family 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 19 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 Jin and Xiaqing Wu Family’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