· Private foundation
Shan's 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
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION | $9,000 |
| NEW YORK UNIVERSITY | $5,000 |
| ASIAN CINE-VISION INC | $3,000 |
| KQED | $1,000 |
| CALIFORNIA FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| CALIFORNIA POLICE YOUTH CHARITY | $500 |
| FIREFIGHTERS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC | $200 |
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 (FY18–25, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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 0% since the first grant, against -7% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 1 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, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k 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
- UOUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION8× · 2018–2025 · $134k · revenue +99%
- THTHE HARKER SCHOOL5× · 2018–2022 · $17k · revenue +35%
- KIKQED INC7× · 2018–2025 · $5k · revenue +22%
Funded once
- RRHOone grant, 2019 · $5k
- CACHINESE AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE ALLIANCE A NJ NONPROFIT CORPORATIONone grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue -70%
- AAASIAN AMERICAN COALITION FOR EDUCATIONone grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +12%
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.
Save Cantonese is an international movement that sustains and celebrates Cantonese language and culture. We have three Strategic Aims: a) protect and strengthen educational and research infrastructure for the Cantonese language, b) affirm…
Providing professional training of Chinese Medicine (TCM), including acupuncture, Chinese herbology, acupressure, Qigong and so on, granting the students Masters degree. Its a three to four years teaching program.
The primary exempt purpose is to support and promote the Korean-American community in Silicon Valley through educational, cultural, and charitable activities.
To promote, propagate and perpetuate chinese language and culture to assist and guide member chinese schools for their betterment to encourage cooperation and to facilitate the interchange of ideas and experiences among member chinese…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Valley Community Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Alliance for Perserving the Truth of Sino-Japan War. 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 24 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
22 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 22 of the 34 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 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SILICON VALLEY CHINESE ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE HARKER SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds New York University ↗
- Who funds CHINESE AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE ALLIANCE A NJ NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION FOR EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
- Who funds California Fraternal Order of Police Foundation ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA POLICE YOUTH CHARITY ↗
- Who funds ASIAN CINE-VISION INC ↗
- Who funds VOICE OF AMERICAN YOUTH ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIANS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FIREFIGHTERS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Citizens for Better Community ↗
- Who funds LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD ↗
- Who funds NORTH VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENTAND SUPPORT GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR PERSERVING THE TRUTH OF SINO-JAPAN WAR ↗
- Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds Rotary Club of Fremont AKA Rotary International ↗
- Who funds DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Community Foundation ↗
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: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Shan's 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.
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 Shan's Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Shan's 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.