Skip to content

· Private foundation

Jiun Hu 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.

$28k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$17k
Largest
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$93kReligion$40kInternational$19kHuman Services$10kCivil Rights$4kArts & Culture$3kYouth Development$100Health$100Other$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $11k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
$2,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$391k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOAR FOUNDATION$17,000
CHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES$4,000
ZIGEN FUND$3,000
United Moms Charity Association$2,000
CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION$1,000
Go and Love Foundation$1,000
SACRED HEART SCHOOL$90
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 88% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%GO AND LOVE FOUNDATION: $2k → 7%The Home of Christ Church: $2k → 8%WCEO-VOX NATIVE: $5k → 10%CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: $1k → 10%NAMI WALK: $1k → 12%ZIGEN FUND: $3k → 13%UNITED MOMS CHARITY: $2k → 8%Go and Love Foundation: $1k → 7%The Home of Christ Church: $2k → 8%WCEO-VOX NATIVE: $4k → 10%CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: $1k → 10%NAMI WALK: $500 → 12%ZIGEN FUND: $3k → 13%United Moms Charity Association: $2k → 8%Go and Love Foundation: $1k → 7%The Home of Christ Church: $2k → 8%WCEO-VOX NATIVE: $3k → 10%CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: $1k → 10%ZIGEN FUND: $2k → 13%United Moms Charity Association: $2k → 8%Go and Love Foundation: $1k → 7%The Home of Christ Church: $1k → 8%WCEO-VOX NATIVE: $3k → 10%CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: $1k → 10%ZIGEN FUND: $2k → 13%United Moms Charity Association: $2k → 8%Go and Love Foundation: $1k → 7%CALIFORNIA LINE DANCE ASSOCIATION: $3k → 8%WCEO-VOX NATIVE: $3k → 10%United Moms Charity Association: $2k → 8%EVERYBODY PITCH IN: $2k → 8%WCEO-VOX NATIVE: $3k → 10%EVERYBODY PITCH IN: $1k → 8%WCEO-VOX NATIVE: $2k → 10%SACRED HEART SCHOOL: $90 → 8%SOAR FOUNDATION: $17k → 10%NEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION: $100 → 8%SOAR FOUNDATION: $14k → 10%SOAR FOUNDATION: $13k → 10%SOAR FOUNDATION: $12k → 10%SOAR FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%SOAR FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%SOAR FOUNDATION: $8k → 10%SOAR FOUNDATION: $7k → 10%SOAR FOUNDATION: $2k → 10%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$188k · 10 repeat orgs$5k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
4

Total granted

$188k
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+91%

Still filing today

60%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $90 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
EducationReligionPhilanthropyCivil RightsArts & CultureOther
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

  • TS
    THE SOAR FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $92k · revenue +147%
  • CS
    CHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES
    9× · 2017–2025 · $33k · revenue +73%
  • TZ
    THE ZIGEN FUND INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $10k · revenue +10%

Funded once

  • CL
    CALIFORNIA LINE DANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue +91%
  • UM
    UNITED MOMS CHARITY
    one grant, 2021 · $2k
  • BS
    BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
    one grant, 2017 · $100
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
China Evangelistic Mission Inc

China Christian Evangelic mission development

Religion
2
Chinese Economic Development Council Inc
Human Services
3
Christian Action Asia Inc

Rescuing and restoring abandonded and disabled children on the Tibetan plateau in China, and transforming the communities in which they live.

—
4
United Foundation for China's Health

UFCH is dedicated to providing or facilitating access to critical medical care for Chinas most disadvantaged groups, including orphans, the homeless, abused women, migrants, and other groups in need of care

International
5
Shoucheng Zhang Foundation
Education
6
Chinese Church Support Ministries Usa Inc

Meet needs inside china through bringing awareness and resources.

Religion
7
Center for Advanced China Research
—
8
Shin Shin Educational Foundation

Our mission is to provide resources, long term care, love and services to construct or renovate elementary schools in the remote, rural and despondent regions of China. Our vision is to improve their learning environment, and therefore to…

International
9
Uc Chinese Alumni Foundation
—
10
Loshasa Charity Foundation

to build non for profit hospital and serve the poor in China.

Health
11
Case Studies of Chinese Language Reformers
Arts & Culture
12
World of Angels Foundation Woa Foundation

To rescue and protect homeless dogs by providing financial aid and managerial support to vetted shelters in China.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Moms Charity Association Inc; the most unlike its peers is Everybody Pitch in. 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, 2017–2026.

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. 9 of the 15 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SOAR FOUNDATION: $92,450 · EducationTHE SOAR FOUNDATIONGO AND LOVE FOUNDATION: $6,000 · EducationGO AND LOVE FOUNDATION+1 more: $100 · EducationIndividual grant recipient: $23,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTHE ZIGEN FUND INC: $10,120 · OtherTHE ZIGEN FUND INCHOME OF CHRIST CHURCH: $7,000 · OtherHOME OF CHRIST CHURCHEVERYBODY PITCH IN: $3,000 · OtherEVERYBODY PITCH INUNITED MOMS CHARITY: $2,000 · Other+3 more: $1,690 · OtherCHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES: $33,000 · ReligionCHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU …UNITED MOMS CHARITY ASSOCIATION INC: $8,000 · PhilanthropyChinese for Affirmative Action: $4,000 · Civil RightsCALIFORNIA LINE DANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: $3,000 · Arts & Culture
Education$98,550Other$46,810Religion$33,000Philanthropy$8,000Civil Rights$4,000Arts & Culture$3,000

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 budgetTHE SOAR FOUNDATION: $92,450 over 9y, 1.2% of budgetCHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES: $33,000 over 9y, 16% of budgetTHE ZIGEN FUND INC: $10,120 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetUNITED MOMS CHARITY ASSOCIATION INC: $8,000 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetGO AND LOVE FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetChinese for Affirmative Action: $4,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA LINE DANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: $3,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetNEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION: $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.

  • Who funds THE SOAR FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds THE ZIGEN FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED MOMS CHARITY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds GO AND LOVE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Chinese for Affirmative Action ↗
  • Who funds EVERYBODY PITCH IN ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA LINE DANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds NEW HOPE CHINESE CANCER CARE FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN10.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving 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 Jiun Hu Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jiun Hu Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 Jiun Hu Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Jiun Hu Foundation 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 15 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 Jiun Hu’s filings →

    More from the funding graph