Skip to content
The James L Kim Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The James L Kim 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.

$357k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$100k
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, FY2020 to 2025.

Education$607kSocial Science$250kHuman Services$175kInternational$168kHealth$25kScience & Tech$25k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $307k
$67,167
Median grant
4
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RAND CORPORATION$100,000
INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EWHA WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY$80,196
PACIFIC CENTURY INSTITUTE$67,167
UNITED BOARD FOR CHRISTIAN HIGH EDUCATION$60,000
EAST-WEST CENTER$25,000
NCNK$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:

Its human-services grants (FY24–24, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%THE ANDROCLES PROJECT: $5k → 17%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.
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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 6 repeat orgs$135k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$1.1M
$85k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
+95%

Still filing today

50%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k 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
InternationalPublic BenefitHuman ServicesOther
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

  • IF
    INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EWHA WOMANS UNIVERSITY INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $472k · revenue +96%
  • The Rand Corporation
    3× · 2020–2025 · $250k · revenue +21%
  • PC
    PACIFIC CENTURY INSTITUTE INC
    3× · 2022–2025 · $127k · revenue -28%

Funded once

  • UB
    UC BERKELEY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $34k
  • SF
    SOCIETY FOR IMMUNOTHERAPY OF CANCER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +95%
  • IS
    INTERNATIONAL STUDENT CONFERENCES INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +96%
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
Unification of Korea Academic Resea

Comparative studies and research concerning the political, economic, social, and cultural barriers and ties among the usa,south korea and north korea.

Arts & Culture
2
Us-Japan Research Institute Suite 801
—
3
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
4
Peter G Peterson Institute for International Economics

The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…

Social Science
5
The Institute On Science for Global Policy

The institute on science for global policy (isgp) designs, organizes, and convenes conferences, programs, and related activities intended to significantly improve the accurate communication of credible scientific and technological ideas,…

Health
6
Institute of International Finance

To support financial industry in prudently managing risks and to foster global financial stability.

—
7
Gordon Research Conferences Inc

The gordon research conferences, inc. provide an international forum for the presentation and discussion of frontier research in the biological, chemical, physical and engineering sciences and their interfaces. *see schedule o*

Science & Tech
8
American National Standards Institute

To enhance both the global competitiveness of u.s. business and the u.s. quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems, and safeguarding their integrity.

Public Benefit
9
Council On Foreign Relations Inc

The council on foreign relations (cfr) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and…

International
10
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.

—
11
International Peace Institute Inc

The international peace institute (ipi) bridges policy and real-world diplomacy, advising global leaders and shaping innovative policy solutions across the multilateral system, governments, and beyond through independent research and…

International
12
Institute for Shipboard Education

Journeys of discovery that spark bold solutions to global challenges.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Student Conferences Inc; the most unlike its peers is Global Technopolitics Forum. 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

9 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. 9 of the 15 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EWHA WOMANS UNIVERSITY INC: $472,256 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EWHA WOMANS UNIVERSITY INCPACIFIC CENTURY INSTITUTE INC: $127,167 · InternationalPACIFIC CENTURY INSTITUTE INC+3 more: $21,000 · InternationalUNITED BOARD FOR CHRISTIAN HIGH EDUCATION: $100,800 · OtherUNITED BOARD FOR CHRISTIAN HIGH …MERCY CORP: $90,000 · OtherMERCY CORPTHE STIMSON CENTER (38 NORTH): $60,000 · OtherTHE STIMSON CENTER (38 NORTH)UC BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $34,000 · OtherUC BERKELEY FOUNDATIONNCNK INC: $25,000 · OtherNCNK INCSOCIETY FOR IMMUNOTHERAPY OF CANCER INC: $25,000 · OtherSOCIETY FOR IMMUNOTHERAPY OF CAN…EAST-WEST CENTER: $25,000 · OtherEAST-WEST CENTERThe Rand Corporation: $250,000 · Public BenefitThe Rand CorporationPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $15,000 · EducationTHE ANDROCLES PROJECT INC: $5,000 · Human Services
International$620,423Other$359,800Public Benefit$250,000Education$15,000Human Services$5,000

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 budgetINTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EWHA WOMANS UNIVERSITY INC: $472,256 over 5y, 4.0% of budgetThe Rand Corporation: $250,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPACIFIC CENTURY INSTITUTE INC: $127,167 over 3y, 8.8% of budgetSOCIETY FOR IMMUNOTHERAPY OF CANCER INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL STUDENT CONFERENCES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetTHE ANDROCLES PROJECT INC: $5,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetTHE KOREA SOCIETY: $1,000 over 1y, 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.

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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA3.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 James L Kim Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The James L Kim Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • President and Fellows of Harvard College: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 15 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 James L Kim’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