Skip to content
Sam H T Chen Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Sam H T Chen 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.

$14k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Religion$76kInternational$11kHealth$7kEnvironment$3kPhilanthropy$2kEducation$2kFood & Nutrition$600Animals$475Other$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$855k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Good Shepherd Christian Church$8,000
Bay Area Life Witness Ministry$5,000
City Team$1,101
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 (FY23–23, $300) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%World Food Program USA: $300 → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
IL
NY
NJ
CA
NE
VA
DC
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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$59k · 7 repeat orgs$42k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +18% since the first grant, against +11% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
22

Total granted

$59k
$41k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
+11%

Still filing today

71%
64%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentReligionInternationalHealthAnimalsEducationOther
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

  • NA
    NATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1k · revenue +18%
  • NW
    NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
    3× · 2023–2025 · $250 · revenue +33%
  • DO
    Defenders of Wildlife
    3× · 2023–2025 · $225 · revenue +35%

Funded once

  • AA
    AGAPE ASIAN MISSION
    one grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue -11%
  • IR
    International Rescue Committee INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $8k · revenue -2%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $4k
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
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
2
Project Drawdown

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;…

Education
3
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
4
Floresta Usa Incorporated

Plant with purpose, a christian nonprofit organization, reverses deforestation and poverty around the world by transforming the lives of the rural poor. we do this through: - watershed restoration & regenerative agriculture - savings…

International
5
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
6
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy

Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.

Food & Nutrition
7
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—
8
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
9
African Wildlife Foundation Inc

Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…

Animals
10
American Farmland Trust

Saves the land that sustains us by protecting farmland, promoting sound farming practices, and keeping farmers on the land.

Food & Nutrition
11
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc

We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…

Environment
12
Wildlife Alliance Inc

Wildlife alliance is the leader in direct protection of forests and wildlife in tropical asia. our mission is to combat deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, and poverty by partnering with local communities and governments.…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of the World Food Program Inc; the most unlike its peers is Agape Asian Mission. 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

21 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. 21 of the 31 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)
21/21
Grantees still filing
13/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BAY AREA LIFE WITNESS MINISTRY: $30,900 · OtherBAY AREA LIFE WITNESS MINISTRYGood Shepherd Christian Church: $25,461 · OtherGood Shepherd Christian ChurchIndividual grant recipient: $4,165 · OtherIndividual grant recipientBay Area Life Witness: $3,000 · Other+12 more: $7,195 · Other+12 moreAGAPE ASIAN MISSION: $15,300 · ReligionAGAPE ASIAN MISSIO…CITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $1,101 · ReligionCITYTEAM MINISTRIE…International Rescue Committee INC: $8,000 · InternationalInternati…WORLD VISION INC: $687 · InternationalWORLD VIS…+1 more: $100 · InternationalNATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION: $1,200 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $1,010 · EnvironmentNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $300 · EnvironmentTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $200 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $100 · EnvironmentTHE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY: $2,000 · EducationAmerican Diabetes Association: $300 · HealthLEAD INC: $200 · HealthNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $250 · AnimalsDefenders of Wildlife: $225 · Animals
Other$70,721Religion$16,401International$8,787Environment$2,810Education$2,000Health$500Animals$475

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 budgetAGAPE ASIAN MISSION: $15,300 over 1y, 20% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $8,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY: $2,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FAMILY GIVING TREE: $1,306 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION: $1,200 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCITYTEAM MINISTRIES: $1,101 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $1,010 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $829 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD VISION INC: $687 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPACIFIC ROWING CLUB: $345 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Diabetes Association: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFeeding America: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $250 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDefenders of Wildlife: $225 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLEAD INC: $200 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $200 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWOMEN FOR WOMEN INTERNATIONAL: $100 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $100 over 3y, 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Sam H T Chen Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sam H T Chen Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Lead Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
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 Sam H T Chen Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Sam H T Chen 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 31 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 Sam H T Chen’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