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

· Public charity

Pops Foundation

POPS FOUNDATION is setup as a referral and resource for families interested in adopting orphans from china.

$740k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$134k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0181% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Human Services$1.3MFood & Nutrition$415kReligion$223kInternational$123kPhilanthropy$51kEducation$23kArts & Culture$6kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $240,073, the rows itemized in this filing. The $740,125 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $500,052 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $30k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $76k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $134k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$8.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
New Wine Next Generation LLC$134,369
Individual grant recipient$26,000
A FAMILY TREE$24,420
Individual grant recipient$15,784
SOBEM USA$10,000
Go Live Serve International$8,000
PESI$8,000
Asian Pacific Fund$7,500
Michael & Amber Chang Foundat$6,000
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: 43% of grant dollars ($946k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 57% that went abroad ($1.3M) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%CCA of C& M A: $6k → 7%CONNECT SILICON VALLEY: $13k → 8%ERRChina: $6k → 9%New Wine Next Generation LLC: $134k → 10%SOBEM USA: $10k → 10%Asian Pacific Fund: $8k → 10%TRANSFORMATIONAL COMM CHURCH: $48k → 9%Paige Embry: $8k → 11%POP CHILDRENS HOME: $590k → 13%CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIANCHURCH: $50k → 7%CONNECT SILICON VALLEY: $13k → 8%New Wine Next Generation LLC: $105k → 10%SOBEM: $6k → 10%TRANSFORMATIONAL COMM CHURCH: $44k → 9%POP CHILDRENS HOME: $585k → 13%PESI: $8k → 8%New Wine Next Generation LLC: $84k → 10%SOBEM USA: $2k → 10%TRANSFORMATIONAL COMM CHURCH: $26k → 9%CHANG FAMILY FOUNDATION: $25k → 10%Transformational Community Ch: $26k → 9%New Wine Next Generation LLC: $75k → 10%A FAMILY TREE: $51k → 9%CHANG FAMILY FOUNDATION: $12k → 10%A FAMILY TREE: $26k → 9%New Wine Next Generation LLC: $17k → 10%A FAMILY TREE: $24k → 9%Michael & Amber Chang Foundat: $6k → 10%YAUTAT JACKIE SHEN: $16k → 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: 57% of all-years giving ($1.3M)

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

grant dollars sentlessmore
China$1.2M · 2 grants
Hong Kong$85k · 1 grant

Grants abroad, by region: $456k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

China$431k · 94% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT · SUPPORT OF ORPHANAGE

Taiwan$25k · 6% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.9M · 9 repeat orgs$278k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
8

Total granted

$1.9M
$198k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
+45%

Still filing today

44%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $80k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionEducationPhilanthropyOther
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

  • PC
    POP CHILDRENS HOME
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1.2M
  • NW
    New Wine Next Generation LLC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $415k
  • TC
    TRANSFORMATIONAL COMM CHURCH
    3× · 2022–2024 · $118k

Funded once

  • WV
    WORLD VISION HONG KONG
    one grant, 2018 · $85k
  • CP
    CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIANCHURCH
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • T
    THREESIXTYgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +45%
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
Bernard Chiu Charitable Foundation
—
2
Ho Chou Family Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Cheong Foundation
Philanthropy
4
Shenpen Foundation
International
5
Florence Fang Family Foundation
International
6
Seanchai Foundation
Arts & Culture
7
Chan Ho Park Dream Foundation
Recreation & Sports
8
The Chung Charitable Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
9
Alice & Jp Wang Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Sangwan Family Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Chai Family Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Asian Pacific Fund; the most unlike its peers is Michael and Amber Chang 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

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 23 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

POP CHILDRENS HOME: $1,175,039 · OtherPOP CHILDRENS HOMENew Wine Next Generation LLC: $415,045 · OtherNew Wine Next Generation LLCTRANSFORMATIONAL COMM CHURCH: $118,000 · OtherTRANSFORMATIONAL COMM CHURCHWORLD VISION HONG KONG: $85,000 · OtherA FAMILY TREE: $77,200 · Other+12 more: $229,204 · Other+12 moreGO LIVE SERVE INTERNATIONAL INC: $38,000 · ReligionTHREESIXTY: $20,000 · ReligionSHOWERS OF BLESSING EVANGELISTIC MINISTRY USA: $12,000 · ReligionFULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: $23,000 · EducationASIAN PACIFIC FUND: $7,500 · PhilanthropyMICHAEL AND AMBER CHANG FOUNDATION: $6,000 · Philanthropy
Other$2,099,488Religion$70,000Education$23,000Philanthropy$13,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGO LIVE SERVE INTERNATIONAL INC: $38,000 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetTHE CHANG FAMILY FOUNDATION: $37,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetHAWAII INTERNATIONAL CHILD PLACEMENT & FAMILY SERVICES: $24,420 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetFULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: $23,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHREESIXTY: $20,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetSHOWERS OF BLESSING EVANGELISTIC MINISTRY USA: $12,000 over 3y, 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.

  • Who funds GO LIVE SERVE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CHANG FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CHILD PLACEMENT & FAMILY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ↗
  • Who funds THREESIXTY ↗
  • Who funds SHOWERS OF BLESSING EVANGELISTIC MINISTRY USA ↗
  • Who funds ASIAN PACIFIC FUND ↗
  • Who funds MICHAEL AND AMBER CHANG FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO4.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Pops Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pops Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Pops Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Pops 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 23 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 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 Pops’ 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