· Private foundation
The Dana and Shane Kim Foundation
Its FY2018 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 FY2017–2018.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2018
- Under $10k13 grants · $19k
- $250k+1 grant · $328k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MS GIFT PM DANA & SHANE KIM FDN (DONAR ADVISED FUND) | $327,930 |
| THE HARVARD FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| ST LUKES LUTHERN CHURCH | $5,000 |
| NCWLIFE | $5,000 |
| PRESTON R TISCH BRAIN TUMOR CENTER | $1,000 |
| POSITIVE COASHING ALLIANCE | $500 |
| STANFORD UNIVERSITY | $500 |
| PACIFIC SCIENCE CENTER | $500 |
| NATIONAL MS SOCIETY | $450 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AMERICA | $277 |
| SEATTLE SEAHAWKS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION | $265 |
| MAKE A WISH FOUNDATION | $100 |
| HRSA (FAMILY TO FAMILY CENTER) | $100 |
| MERCER ISLAND YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES | $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 (FY17–17, $300) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% 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.
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.
5 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (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 FY2018, 2% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $340k 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
- SLST LUKES LUTHERN CHURCH2× · 2017–2018 · $12k
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AMERICA2× · 2017–2018 · $777
- PCPOSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE2× · 2017–2018 · $763 · revenue +63%
Funded once
- PIPay It Forward Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue +56%
- FLFOOD LIFELINEgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $496 · revenue +89%
AMARAgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $300 · revenue +80%
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.
Portland state university foundation is responsible for raising and managing private resources to advance psu's priorities and mission to be a leading urban university.
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
A diverse and sustainable learning community dedicated to discovery and excellence in teaching, scholarship and practice, pacific university inspires students to think, care, create and pursue justice in our world.
Seattle foundation's mission is to ignite powerful and rewarding philanthropy to make greater seattle a stronger, more vibrant community for all.
Siff is a seattle-based 501(c)(3) arts nonprofit dedicated to the creation of vibrant experiences and spaces that champion film discovery and arts education.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The seattle public library foundation inspires the community's philanthropic support, advocacy for, and pride in the library.
Scu is a catholic and jesuit institution that makes student learning its central focus, promotes faculty and staff learning in its various forms, and exhibits organizational learning.
Seattle academy is a dynamic community that challenges students to question, imagine, and create in order to contribute to a changing world.
Our vision is to reimagine everyday giving to help charities. our mission is to enable the world's leading online platforms to create opportunities for everyday charitable giving. in doing so, we ensure our programs are trustworthy,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of Alaska & Washington and the most unlike its peers is Pay It Forward Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 21 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 POSITIVE COACHING ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Pay It Forward Foundation ↗
- Who funds PACIFIC SCIENCE CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FOOD LIFELINE ↗
- Who funds AMARA ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE SEAHAWKS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ALASKA & WASHINGTON ↗
- Who funds BUILDON INC ↗
- Who funds UC SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Camp Solomon Schechter ↗
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: United Way of King County · Seattle Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 The Dana and Shane Kim 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 The Dana and Shane Kim Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Dana and Shane Kim 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.