· Private foundation
Meiychang 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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
100% of Meiychang Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2017, the last year Meiychang Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $40k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2017
- Under $10k7 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $23k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $23,000 |
| DIRECT RELIEF | $5,000 |
| ALL HANDS VOLUNTEERS OFFICE | $5,000 |
| AGAINST MALARIA FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| SAN JOSE TAIKO | $2,000 |
| AMERICAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL SOCIETY | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| IN TAISHAN BUDDHISM FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY20–20, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
5 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2017, 1 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2017 (too recent to call). Read against FY2017, 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2021, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- IGIndividual grant recipient2× · 2017–2018 · $45k
- SJSan Jose Taiko Group Inc2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue -5%
- TAThe Against Malaria Foundation2× · 2017–2020 · $4k · revenue +29%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $16k
- ZCZEN CENTER OF SUNNYVALEone grant, 2018 · $10k
ALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +129%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Provide humanitarian support in China. Help to develop a civil society in China. Promote rule-of-law,human rights, and freedom of expressions.Focus on grass-root and people who are neglected by the outside world
To alleviate suffering, poverty and oppression through direct aid, economic and techinical assistance, education and other forms of charitable assistance to people in need throughout the world
Providing philanthropists, foundations and family offices access to social investment expertise by allowing the donors to give tax deductible donations worldwide through a social investment market.
Transparent fish fund is a 501(c)(3) us non-profit organization founded in 2011 in palo alto, california, established exclusively for charitable purposes to connect credible chinese and east asian grassroots ngos with individuals from the…
Give2asia provides philanthropic services to individuals, foundations, corporations and charitable organizations in the united states and asia. give2asia matches donor interests and grantee mission and capacity to make international…
Our mission is to connect caring people with great causes worldwide.
Founded in 1995, the american friends of the shanghai museum is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to raise awareness and financial support for the shanghai museum, continuing a distinguished history of patron support for…
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.
To drive global coordination that minimizes extreme AI risks and ensures the benefits of AI are shared by all. SAIF fosters responsible governance to reduce catastrophic risks through shared understanding and collaboration among key global…
Strategic Global Response effectively and efficiently delivers life-saving care to people affected by humanitarian crises, in the most challenging situations on earth
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Soar Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 23 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds San Jose Taiko Group Inc ↗
- Who funds ALL HANDS AND HEARTS SMART RESPONSE INC ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds The Against Malaria Foundation ↗
- Who funds BUDDHIST TZU CHI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GIVEDIRECTLY INC ↗
- Who funds MORINGA FOR LOVE ↗
- Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds THE SOAR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHINESE CULTURE FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Meiychang Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.