Skip to content
Paul Bao-Ho and Mei-Yea Liao Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Paul Bao-Ho and Mei-Yea Liao Charitable Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$1k
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 2024.

Education$385kHealth$63kArts & Culture$12kPublic Safety & Disaster$10kFood & Nutrition$7kInternational$5kSocial Science$1kPhilanthropy$500
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WING LUKE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION$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.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $10k → 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.
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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$291k · 4 repeat orgs$193k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against +46% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
12

Total granted

$291k
$193k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+46%

Still filing today

100%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • LS
    LAKESIDE SCHOOL
    4× · 2017–2022 · $213k · revenue +197%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
    3× · 2019–2022 · $61k · revenue +28%
  • WING LUKE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
    3× · 2018–2024 · $12k · revenue +50%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
    one grant, 2019 · $98k
  • FH
    FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER
    one grant, 2018 · $40k · revenue -18%
  • HF
    HKAW FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2020 · $11k
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
Washington State University Foundation

The mission of the Foundation is to promote, accept, and maximize private support for programs, initiatives, and properties of Washington State University and its regional campuses. The Foundation also prudently manages, invests, and…

Education
2
Western University of Health Sciences

To produce, in a humanistic tradition, health care professionals and biomedical knowledge that will enhance and extend the quality of life in our communities.

—
3
Seattle Children's Hospital

Seattle children's hospital (seattle children's) will be an innovative leader in pediatric health and wellness through our unsurpassed quality, clinical care, relentless spirit of inquiry, and compassion for all children and their…

Health
4
Western Healthconnect

Support significant improvements in health care delivery and outcomes within the context of nonprofit, charitable ownership.

Health
5
The Humane Society for Seattleking County

Seattle humane promotes the human-animal bond by saving and serving pets in need, regardless of age, ability, circumstance or geography.

Animals
6
The Association of Chrmc and University Physicians

Children's university medical group (cumg) is the non-profit pediatric group practice established to support the academic, research and clinical missions of its corporate members, university of washington school of medicine (uwsom) and…

Health
7
Life Science Washington

Life science washington is a non-profit trade and professional association dedicated to promoting innovation and responsible growth in the life sciences and biomedical industries in the state of washington. promotion and education are…

—
8
United Way of Snohomish County

United way of snohomish county improves lives for families in snohomish county by bringing people, resources, and strategy together.

Philanthropy
9
Seattle International Foundation

Seattle international foundation (sif) champions equity and rule of law in central america through good governance and a robust civil society. sif works with other donors to the region to increase philanthropy and to promote collaboration,…

Philanthropy
10
Siff

Siff is a seattle-based 501(c)(3) arts nonprofit dedicated to the creation of vibrant experiences and spaces that champion film discovery and arts education.

Youth Development
11
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
12
Washington State Council of Fire Fighters Employee Benefit Trust

It is the mission of the wscff employee benefit trust to provide the best possible plan benefits to its participating members and to enhance the plan as greater benefit options become available in the dynamic health care industry.

Membership Benefit
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Seattle Children's Foundation; the most unlike its peers is American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches. 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, 2017–2025.

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. 9 of the 16 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LAKESIDE SCHOOL: $212,500 · EducationLAKESIDE SCHOOLUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $60,500 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATIONUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $98,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $40,000 · OtherFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTERWING LUKE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $12,405 · OtherWING LUKE MEMORIAL FOUNDATIONHKAW FOUNDATION: $10,600 · OtherHKAW FOUNDATIONSeattle Children's Foundation: $10,000 · Other+7 more: $22,233 · Other+7 moreAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $10,000 · Human ServicesProject Access Northwest: $8,000 · Health
Education$273,000Other$193,238Human Services$10,000Health$8,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLAKESIDE SCHOOL: $212,500 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $60,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWING LUKE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $12,405 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetSeattle Children's Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetProject Access Northwest: $8,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNORTHWEST HARVEST EMM: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetStanwood-Camano Area Foundation: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 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 Paul Bao-Ho and Mei-Yea Liao Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Paul Bao-Ho and Mei-Yea Liao Charitable 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%25%50%75%100%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
    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 16 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Paul Bao-Ho and Mei-Yea Liao’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