Skip to content

· Private foundation

Katherine and George Fan 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.

$72k
Granted FY2023
9
Grants FY2023
3
States reached
$25k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

78% of Katherine and George Fan Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to The Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Katherine and George Fan Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $72k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

5
’17
4
’18
1
’19
3
’20
1
’21
1
’22
5
’23
4
’24
1
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Arts & Culture$585kEducation$379kHealth$84kInternational$20kReligion$19kHuman Services$10kYouth Development$10kCommunity Improvement$7kOther$0
02FY2023 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k6 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $55k
$3,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$469k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ASIAN ART MUSEUM$25,000
THE METROPOLITAN OPERA$20,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF SHANGHAI MUSEUM$10,000
WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL$8,000
CARNEGIE HALL$3,000
MARYKNOLL SISTERS OF SAINT DOMINIC$2,500
THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART$1,500
BRATTLEBORO HOCKEY ED FUND$1,000
JAZZ AT LINCOLN CENTER$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: 57% of grant dollars ($706k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 43% that went abroad ($541k) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY20–20, $200) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%OSSINING CHILDREN'S CENTER: $200 → 9%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: 43% of all-years giving ($541k)

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

grant dollars sentlessmore
China$272k · 1 grant
Hong Kong$260k · 2 grants
Taiwan$8k · 1 grant
Japan$365 · 1 grant
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 16% of Katherine and George Fan Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Katherine and George Fan Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 43% 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
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$816k · 16 repeat orgs$317k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2023, 9 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
11

Total granted

$816k
$313k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+20%
+45%

Still filing today

44%
45%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Arts & CultureHealthCommunity ImprovementPublic BenefitHuman ServicesInternationalOther
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

  • NY
    NEW YORK WOMEN'S CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC
    2× · 2018–2020 · $7k · revenue +35%
  • JA
    JAZZ AT LINCOLN CENTER INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $6k · revenue +20%
  • MO
    Museum of Modern Art
    3× · 2018–2023 · $3k · revenue +28%

Funded once

  • BP
    BEIJING PALACE MUSEUM
    one grant, 2021 · $272k
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE SHANGHAI MUSEUM INC
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +13%
  • TF
    THE FIELD CENTER FOR CHILDRENS DEVELOPMENT
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
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
American Museum of Natural History

The museum's mission statement is: "to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe."

Arts & Culture
2
Metropolitan Museum of Art

The metropolitan museum of art collects, studies, conserves, and presents significant works of art across all times and cultures in order to connect people to creativity, knowledge, and ideas.

Arts & Culture
3
The Asia Society

The society is an international nonprofit, nonpartisan organization which connects people and institutions in asia and the world to build understanding, address challenges and maximize opportunities.

International
4
The Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences

The mission of the brooklyn institute of arts and sciences, d/b/a brooklyn museum (the "museum") is to bring people together through art and experiences that inspire celebration, compassion, courage, and the will to act. (see schedule o).

Arts & Culture
5
The Pierpont Morgan Library

The Morgan Library & Museum celebrates and shares the history and process of human creativity from antiquity to the present day through the preservation, study, and interpretation of a dynamic and growing collection.

Education
6
The Jewish Museum

The mission of the jewish museum is to collect, preserve, exhibit and interpret art and jewish culture. see schedule o for more information.

Arts & Culture
7
The Frick Collection

The Frick Collection (the "Collection") operates an internationally recognized art museum and library program for the inspiration and enjoyment of the public and for the advancement of the study of fine arts and kindred subjects.

—
8
New York Genome Center Inc

Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.

Health
9
Manhattan School of Music

Manhattan school of music is deeply committed to excellence in education, performance, and creative activity; to the humanity of the school's environment; and to the cultural enrichment of the larger community. a premiere international…

Arts & Culture
10
Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences dba the Staten Island Museum

Founded in 1881 the Staten Island Museum engages visitors with interdisciplinary exhibitions, public programs, and educational activities for all ages. It is the mission of the Staten Island Museum to spark curiosity and generate…

Arts & Culture
11
Berggruen Institute
Education
12
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Inc

Organization's mission statement true to the ambitious vision of its founder and her spirit of creative risk-taking, the mission of the isabella stewart gardner museum is: - to bring to life and preserve the rich historic collection; - to…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Carnegie Hall Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 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

14 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. 14 of the 30 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
11/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BEIJING PALACE MUSEUM: $272,188 · OtherBEIJING PALACE MUSEUMTHE HANG SENG UNIVERSITY: $260,000 · OtherTHE HANG SENG UNIVERSITYIndividual grant recipient: $119,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTHE METROPOLITAN OPERA: $70,000 · OtherTHE METROPOLITAN OPERAAMERICAN FRIENDS OF SHANGHAI MUSEUM: $40,000 · Other+11 more: $94,231 · Other+11 moreASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO: $150,000 · Arts & CultureASIAN ART MUSEU…AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE SHANGHAI MUSEUM INC: $10,000 · Arts & CultureAMERICAN FRIEND…JAZZ AT LINCOLN CENTER INC: $6,000 · Arts & Culture+3 more: $7,400 · Arts & CultureTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $115,000 · EducationTHE BOARD …FELDENKRAIS FOUNDATION INC: $70,000 · Health+2 more: $1,300 · HealthThe Forgotten International: $20,000 · InternationalNEW YORK WOMEN'S CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC: $7,000 · Community ImprovementTEATOWN LAKE RESERVATION INC: $5,000 · Public BenefitOSSINING CHILDREN'S CENTER INC: $200 · Human Services
Other$855,419Arts & Culture$173,400Education$115,000Health$71,300International$20,000Community Improvement$7,000Public Benefit$5,000Human Services$200

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 budgetASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO: $150,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $115,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetFELDENKRAIS FOUNDATION INC: $70,000 over 2y, 47% of budgetThe Forgotten International: $20,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE SHANGHAI MUSEUM INC: $10,000 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetNEW YORK WOMEN'S CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC: $7,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetJAZZ AT LINCOLN CENTER INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMuseum of Modern Art: $3,400 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CARNEGIE HALL CORPORATION: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLINCOLN CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOSSINING VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE CORPS INC: $300 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetOSSINING CHILDREN'S CENTER INC: $200 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 ASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO ↗
  • Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds FELDENKRAIS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds The Forgotten International ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE SHANGHAI MUSEUM INC ↗
  • Who funds NEW YORK WOMEN'S CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC ↗
  • Who funds JAZZ AT LINCOLN CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds TEATOWN LAKE RESERVATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Museum of Modern Art ↗
  • Who funds THE CARNEGIE HALL CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds LINCOLN CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS INC ↗
  • Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
  • Who funds OSSINING VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE CORPS INC ↗
  • Who funds OSSINING CHILDREN'S CENTER INC ↗

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.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Katherine and George Fan Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Katherine and George Fan 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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 Katherine and George Fan Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Katherine and George Fan 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 30 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.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Katherine and George Fan’s filings →

More from the funding graph