Skip to content
Qing Zhou and Rong Nie Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Qing Zhou and Rong Nie 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.

$5k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

Human Services$8kFood & Nutrition$4kEducation$1kPhilanthropy$700Health$515Youth Development$301Arts & Culture$250Other$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$260
Median grant
3
States reached
$369k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Taiyuan Children Welfare Institute$1,400
Shanxi Agriculture University Education Foundation$1,400
American Online Giving Foundation Inc$500
Active Minds$265
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Southern California$265
The Salvation Army$260
UC San Diego$250
Individual grant recipient$200
Timberwolf Instrumental Music Boosters Northwood High School$100
Second Harvest Food Bank Of Orange County Inc$100
Studysmart Youth Services Inc$100
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: 31% of grant dollars ($5k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 69% that went abroad ($11k) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 44% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%American Online Giving Foundation Inc: $500 → 10%IPSF Donation: $200 → 10%UC San Diego: $250 → 11%The Salvation Army Southern California Division: $104 → 14%UCSB: $500 → 14%The Blackbaud Giving Fund: $100 → 9%Active Minds: $265 → 14%Gofundme: $100 → 8%IPSF: $103 → 10%The Salvation Army: $260 → 14%UC Santa Barbar: $500 → 14%Study Smart Youth Services: $101 → 10%Ronald McDonald House Charities of Southern California: $265 → 14%Study Smart Youth Services Inc: $100 → 10%Irvine Public Schools Foundation: $100 → 10%Ronald McDonald House: $186 → 10%Northwood High School PTSA: $225 → 10%JOHN TICHY: $200 → 10%Timberwolf Instrumental Music Boosters Northwood High School: $150 → 10%Northwood High School: $137 → 10%Timberwolf Instrumental Music Boosters Northwood High School: $100 → 10%Northwood High School Chnese PTA: $100 → 10%Second Harvest Food Bank Of Orange County Inc: $100 → 10%Studysmart Youth Services Inc: $100 → 10%Study Smart: $100 → 10%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: 69% of all-years giving ($11k)

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

grant dollars sentlessmore
China$11k · 6 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 12% of Qing Zhou and Rong Nie Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Qing Zhou and Rong Nie Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 69% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

68%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11k · 5 repeat orgs$5k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
12

Total granted

$11k
$2k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-37%
+8%

Still filing today

20%
8%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 43% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
HealthFood & NutritionEducationPhilanthropyOther
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

  • TC
    Taiyuan Children Welfare Institute
    3× · 2023–2025 · $7k
  • SA
    Shanxi Agriculture University
    2× · 2023–2024 · $3k
  • TS
    THE SALVATION ARMY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $364

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $500
  • U
    UCSB
    one grant, 2022 · $500
  • NH
    Northwood High School PTSA
    one grant, 2023 · $225
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
05the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 25 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)
7/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Taiyuan Children Welfare Institute: $7,147 · OtherTaiyuan Children Welfare InstituteShanxi Agriculture University: $2,562 · OtherShanxi Agriculture UniversityShanxi Agriculture University Education Foundation: $1,400 · OtherShanxi Agriculture University Education FoundationIndividual grant recipient: $500 · OtherUCSB: $500 · Other+14 more: $2,731 · Other+14 moreAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $500 · PhilanthropyTHE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND: $100 · PhilanthropyIRVINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $100 · PhilanthropyActive Minds Inc: $265 · HealthTIMBERWOLVES INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC BOOSTERS: $250 · EducationSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK OF ORANGE COUNTY INC: $100 · Food & Nutrition
Other$14,840Philanthropy$700Health$265Education$250Food & Nutrition$100

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 budgetAMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetActive Minds Inc: $265 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTIMBERWOLVES INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC BOOSTERS: $250 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK OF ORANGE COUNTY INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetIRVINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $100 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 AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Active Minds Inc ↗
  • Who funds RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
  • Who funds TIMBERWOLVES INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC BOOSTERS ↗
  • Who funds THE BLACKBAUD GIVING FUND ↗
  • Who funds SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK OF ORANGE COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds IRVINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Qing Zhou and Rong Nie Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Qing Zhou and Rong Nie Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%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
    1get 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 Qing Zhou and Rong Nie Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Qing Zhou and Rong Nie 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 25 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 Qing Zhou and Rong Nie’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