Skip to content
Liuchao Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Liuchao 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.

$7k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
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$174kPhilanthropy$40kInternational$16kHealth$10kEducation$10kScience & Tech$2k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FORERUNNER CHRISTIAN CHURCH$5,051
NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY ALUMNI A$1,000
UNICEF$762
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: 88% of grant dollars ($222k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 12% that went abroad ($30k) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY20–23, $903) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%HEART HEROES: $150 → 12%TUCKLETS: $650 → 11%HEART HEROES: $103 → 12%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: 12% of all-years giving ($30k)

1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
China$30k · 3 grants
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$203k · 9 repeat orgs$49k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +34% since the first grant, against +3% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
9

Total granted

$203k
$49k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+3%

Still filing today

56%
44%

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
HealthHuman ServicesReligionPhilanthropyInternationalOther
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

  • SP
    SAMARITAN'S PURSE
    5× · 2020–2024 · $10k · revenue +106%
  • TA
    TOURETTE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC
    4× · 2020–2023 · $7k · revenue +34%
  • UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF
    5× · 2018–2025 · $2k · revenue +47%

Funded once

  • PL
    PROMISE LAND MINISTRIES INTERNATION
    one grant, 2017 · $31k
  • EL
    EMBRACE LOVE & LIGHT FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue -44% · 52% of their budget
  • EP
    EVERYBODY PITCH IN
    one grant, 2018 · $3k
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
World Forgotten Children Foundation
Philanthropy
2
The Lulu Foundation
Philanthropy
3
World Health Foundation
—
4
Love Your Heart Foundation
Health
5
Lightning and Love Foundation

To raise awareness advance scientific r

Health
6
LOVE4KIDS Foundation
—
7
Love for Life Foundation
International
8
Miracles & Wonders Foundation
—
9
Almas Children Cancer Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Hearts for Hearts Foundation
—
11
Children of Light
Education
12
Angels in Africa
International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United States Fund for Unicef; the most unlike its peers is Embrace Love & Light 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

10 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. 10 of the 18 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HOME OF CHRIST CHINESE CHURCH: $137,400 · OtherHOME OF CHRIST CHINESE CHURCHPROMISE LAND MINISTRIES INTERNATION: $31,400 · OtherPROMISE LAND MINISTRIES INTERNATIONOVERSEAS CHINESE CHARITY FOUNDATION: $30,000 · OtherOVERSEAS CHINESE CHARITY FOUNDATIONNATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY ALUMNI A: $8,000 · Other+6 more: $12,751 · Other+6 moreSAMARITAN'S PURSE: $10,300 · ReligionEMBRACE LOVE & LIGHT FOUNDATION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyTOURETTE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC: $6,966 · HealthFriends of Children with Special Needs: $1,950 · Health+1 more: $120 · HealthUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $2,472 · InternationalTUCKLETS: $650 · Human ServicesHEART HEROES INC: $253 · Human Services
Other$219,551Religion$10,300Philanthropy$10,000Health$9,036International$2,472Human Services$903

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 budgetSAMARITAN'S PURSE: $10,300 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetEMBRACE LOVE & LIGHT FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 52% of budgetTOURETTE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC: $6,966 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $2,472 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetFriends of Children with Special Needs: $1,950 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFREMONT EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $1,850 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTUCKLETS: $650 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHEART HEROES INC: $253 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC: $120 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 SAMARITAN'S PURSE ↗
  • Who funds EMBRACE LOVE & LIGHT FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TOURETTE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds EVERYBODY PITCH IN ↗
  • Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
  • Who funds Friends of Children with Special Needs ↗
  • Who funds FREMONT EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TUCKLETS ↗
  • Who funds HEART HEROES INC ↗
  • Who funds ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION 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.

American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE7.7× affinity5 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 Liuchao Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Liuchao Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 18 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 Liuchao’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