· Private foundation
Raymond and Joanne Lin 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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 42% of RAYMOND AND JOANNE LIN FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k50 grants · $60k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SELF-HELP FOR THE ELDERLY | $16,500 |
| GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND | $5,000 |
| ASIAN LAW CAUCUS | $5,000 |
| MOONSTAR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION | $3,500 |
| KQED | $3,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AM | $2,000 |
| ACLU FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| SAVE THE CHILDREN | $2,000 |
| UC BERKELEY FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION-NORCAL CHAP | $2,000 |
| CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES | $1,750 |
| DONORSCHOOSEORG | $1,720 |
| COASTSIDE HOPE | $1,500 |
| CHILDHELP | $1,500 |
| FINE ARTS MUSEUM OF SF | $1,100 |
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 (FY17–25, $88k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 90% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +46% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
63 repeat relationships — 40 still active in FY2025, 23 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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 FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k 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
- SFSELF-HELP FOR THE ELDERLY8× · 2017–2025 · $54k · revenue +72%
- ALAsian Law Caucus7× · 2017–2025 · $27k · revenue +180%
- CAContemporary Asian Theatre Scene Inc6× · 2019–2024 · $26k · revenue +797%
Funded once
- DADesert Ability Centerone grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue -81%
- UBUC BERKELEY FOUNDATION GIFT SERVICEone grant, 2022 · $5k
- UPUNITED PEACE COLLABORATIVEone grant, 2021 · $3k
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…
To advance human rights and social justice in the americas.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…
To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.
Root change's mission is to bring people together to question assumptions, think deeply, test ideas, and lead the way to a world built on social justice principles.
Just safe's mission is to educate the public about the needs of communities most impacted by crime, violence, and incarceration; and promote new safety solutions through community-building, leadership development, grassroots mobilization,…
The organization's mission is to promote the collective voice of a diverse coalition of organizations and individuals working to eliminate all forms of domestic violence. as an advocate for sociate change, we advance our mission by…
Pangea's mission is to provide deportation defense services, advocate for policy change, and provide education and legal empowerment for our immigrant communities.
We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Human Rights Watch Inc and the most unlike its peers is Robert M Hoffman Foundation for Cancer Research. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 34 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
91 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. 91 of the 133 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 THE TAYLOR FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SELF-HELP FOR THE ELDERLY ↗
- Who funds Asian Law Caucus ↗
- Who funds Contemporary Asian Theatre Scene Inc ↗
- Who funds CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDHELP INC ↗
- Who funds HUCKLEBERRY YOUTH PROGRAMS INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds MOONSTAR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND INC ↗
- Who funds TREVOR PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds EAST PALO ALTO TENNIS & TUTORING ↗
- Who funds SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds SUMMER SEARCH ↗
- Who funds WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Desert Ability Center ↗
- Who funds NORTH VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA ↗
- Who funds Save The Children Federation Inc ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FLORENCE IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE RIGHTS PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Jasper Ridge Farm ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds San Jose Taiko Group Inc ↗
- Who funds PUENTE DE LA COSTA SUR ↗
- Who funds RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES - BAY AREA ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · McNabb Foundation · Robert J Louie Memorial Fund · Asian Pacific Fund · Second Harvest of Silicon Valley · United Way of the Bay Area · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · East Bay Community Foundation · Marin Community 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 Raymond and Joanne Lin 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.
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Raymond and Joanne Lin Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Raymond and Joanne Lin 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.