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

· Public charity

The Asia Foundation

THE ASIA FOUNDATION (taf) is an international nonprofit organization working to solve the toughest social and economic challenges in asia and the pacific.

$27M
Granted FY2020
5
Grants FY2020
3
States reached
$707k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2020.

International$1.9MSocial Science$157kCrime & Legal$98kEnvironment$95kArts & Culture$32kPublic Benefit$25kPhilanthropy$10k
02FY2020 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $1,156,264, the rows itemized in this filing. The $27,352,334 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $26,196,070 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 · FY2020

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $87k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
$37,446
Median grant
3
States reached
$97M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CARNEGIE MIDDLE EAST CENTER$706,721
THE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER$362,092
IDEAS42$37,446
NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION INC$25,005
ASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO$25,000
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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 94% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GIVE 2 ASIA: $150k → 10%BISHOP MUSEUM: $7k → 9%NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION INC: $25k → 17%THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $25k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSITION: $37k → 12%COUNCIL ON FOUNDATIONS: $10k → 7%NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS: $59k → 7%GIRL DETERMINED: $22k → 8%ASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO: $25k → 10%PACIFIC FORUM CSIS: $10k → 9%IDEAS42: $37k → 17%THE ASPEN INSTITUTE: $50k → 14%COUNCIL ON FOUNDATIONS INC: $10k → 7%NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURT: $39k → 7%IDEAS42: $19k → 17%ASPEN INSTITUTE: $25k → 14%ACTIONAID USA: $18k → 14%THE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $362k → 14%CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $52k → 14%CARNEGIE MIDDLE EAST CENTER: $707k → 14%PACIFIC FORUM CSIS: $8k → 14%CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT INTERNATION: $580k → 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.

Grants abroad, by region: $17M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions, $17M to organizations and $339k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

East Asia and the Pacific$13M · 75% · 308 grants · 62 people

Stated purpose: ECONOMIC GROWTH · GOVERNANCE & LAW · WOMEN'S EMPOWERMENT

South Asia$4.2M · 25% · 122 grants · 38 people

Stated purpose: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT · GOVERNANCE & LAW · ECONOMIC GROWTH

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. 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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 7 repeat orgs$459k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -1% since the first grant, against -5% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2020, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
3

Total granted

$1.7M
$47k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-1%
-5%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $412k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
InternationalSocial ScienceArts & CultureCrime & LegalCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentOther
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

  • THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $100k · revenue +243%
  • NC
    NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
    2× · 2018–2019 · $98k · revenue +42%
  • IF
    Institute for Social and Environmental Transition- International
    2× · 2017–2018 · $74k · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • GD
    GIRL DETERMINED
    one grant, 2018 · $22k · revenue -5%
  • AU
    ACTIONAID USA
    one grant, 2018 · $18k · revenue -13%
  • BM
    BISHOP MUSEUMgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $7k · revenue +94%
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
International Center for Research On Women

The international center for research for women (icrw) is a global research institute, with a mission to advance rights and opportunities for women, girls, and structurally excluded populations with actionable evidence and solutions.

International
2
The International Institute for Strategic Studies - Us

To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…

International
3
United States Naval Institute

Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.

—
4
Center for Arms Control and

A nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to enhancing international peace and security in the 21st century, thereby retaining its focus on nuclear weapons but expanding to include other present emerging security threats.

International
5
The National Bureau of Asian Research

Nbr conducts advanced independent research on strategic, political, economic, energy, globalization, and health issues affecting u.s. relations with asia. drawing upon an extensive network of the world's leading specialists and leveraging…

—
6
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
7
Foreign Policy Research Institute

The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…

International
8
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
9
Institute of International Bankers

The iib represents the interests of the international banking community before u.s. legislative/regulatory bodies liaises with international regulatory bodies serves as a source of information to the media and other interested parties…

—
10
Corporation for National Research Initiatives

Scientific research in information processing; fostering dev. of nat'l inf. infra.

Science & Tech
11
Institute for Conservation Leadership

To support healthy communities and a healthy earth, the institute for conservation leadership strengthens leaders, organizations, coalitions and networks.

Community Improvement
12
National Opinion Research Center

See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…

Social Science
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Aspen Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is Girl Determined. 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

14 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.

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)
14/14
Grantees still filing
6/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $1,338,109 · InternationalCARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACETHE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $362,092 · InternationalTHE HENRY L STIMSON CENTERGIVE2ASIA: $150,000 · InternationalGIVE2ASIA+2 more: $39,300 · InternationalTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $100,000 · Social ScienceBEHAVIORAL IDEAS LAB INC: $56,535 · Social ScienceACTIONAID USA: $17,783 · Social ScienceNATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS: $98,216 · Crime & LegalInstitute for Social and Environmental Transition- International: $73,601 · EnvironmentASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO: $25,000 · Arts & CultureBISHOP MUSEUM: $7,000 · Arts & CultureNATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION IN: $25,005 · Community ImprovementCouncil on Foundations Inc: $20,200 · Philanthropy
International$1,889,501Social Science$174,318Crime & Legal$98,216Environment$73,601Arts & Culture$32,000Community Improvement$25,005Philanthropy$20,200

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: $1,338,109 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetTHE HENRY L STIMSON CENTER: $362,092 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $100,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS: $98,216 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetInstitute for Social and Environmental Transition- International: $73,601 over 2y, 4.4% of budgetBEHAVIORAL IDEAS LAB INC: $56,535 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION IN: $25,005 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGIRL DETERMINED: $21,739 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetCouncil on Foundations Inc: $20,200 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: $17,561 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBISHOP MUSEUM: $7,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

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.

National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA8.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · 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 The Asia Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Asia Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    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.

    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 14 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $18M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2020, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Asia’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