Skip to content
Liangli Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Liangli 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.

$2k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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.

Arts & Culture$3kEducation$3kReligion$1kYouth Development$635Employment$200Health$120International$49
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOAR FOUNDATION$1,500
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 (FY22–22, $200) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, 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%EMMA'S TORCH: $200 → 20%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 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
Annapurna Global Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Acucares Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Center for Advanced China Research
—
4
San Francisco Guzheng Music Society
Arts & Culture
5
The Desai Foundation
Education
6
The American Foundation for Chinese Medicine Inc

To advance the knowledge of chinese medicine through education and scientific research.

—
7
Uc Chinese Alumni Foundation
—
8
Us - China Policy Foundation
—
9
Foundation for Chinese Cultural Heritage
Philanthropy
10
Sino-American Cancer Foundation
Health
11
The Avi Chai Foundation
Unclassified
12
California University - Silicon Valley

Providing professional training of Chinese Medicine (TCM), including acupuncture, Chinese herbology, acupressure, Qigong and so on, granting the students Masters degree. Its a three to four years teaching program.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Globalgiving Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Aparnas Health 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

8 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. 8 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
1/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM: $2,000 · OtherGUGGENHEIM MUSEUMSIAN TIEN DAO YUAN: $600 · OtherSIAN TIEN DAO YUANCEC CHURCH: $500 · OtherCEC CHURCHYOUTH4GOOD: $500 · OtherYOUTH4GOODIRVINGTON HIGH SCHOOL: $190 · Other+3 more: $265 · Other+3 moreTHE SOAR FOUNDATION: $2,750 · EducationTHE SOAR FOUNDATIONMUSEUM OF CHINESE IN AMERICA: $1,000 · Arts & CultureMUSEUM OF CHI…EMMA'S TORCH LTD: $200 · Human ServicesAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $100 · HealthNORTHERN CALIFORNIA BODHI DHARMA SOCIETY: $68 · ReligionGLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC: $49 · InternationalAparnas Health Foundation: $20 · Philanthropy
Other$4,055Education$2,750Arts & Culture$1,000Human Services$200Health$100Religion$68International$49Philanthropy$20

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

25%50%75%100%$10k$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE SOAR FOUNDATION: $2,750 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMUSEUM OF CHINESE IN AMERICA: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEMMA'S TORCH LTD: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHERN CALIFORNIA BODHI DHARMA SOCIETY: $68 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC: $49 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FAMILY GIVING TREE: $30 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAparnas Health Foundation: $20 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE7.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Liangli Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Liangli 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%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 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 Liangli’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