Skip to content
The Leo Koguan Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Leo Koguan 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.

$2.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1.2M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$27MScience & Tech$385kCommunity Improvement$125kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $35k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $125k
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.0M
$335,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets

Anchored by a single position: about 97% of reported assets are held in Securities Tesla Inc.

Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC$1,194,700
PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA$470,100
TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY$335,000
FORBES GLOBAL CEO CONFERENCE SPONSORSHIP$125,000
FUDAN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION$34,800
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 76% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $50k → 8%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $904k → 7%FUDAN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $35k → 11%TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $1.7M → 14%FORBES GLOBAL CEO CONFERENCE SPONSORSHIP: $125k → 14%SCIENCE FESTIVAL FOUNDATION: $50k → 17%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $3.1M → 11%STAMFORD UNIVERSITY: $1.0M → 9%GIVE ASIA: $50k → 5%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $656k → 7%FUDAN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $35k → 11%TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $1.7M → 14%COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: $100k → 17%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $2.1M → 11%STAMFORD UNIVERSITY: $50k → 9%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $635k → 7%FUDAN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $34k → 11%TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $672k → 14%NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: $50k → 17%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $2.1M → 11%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $621k → 7%TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $424k → 14%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $1.9M → 11%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $591k → 7%TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $50k → 14%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $1.7M → 11%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $539k → 7%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $1.6M → 11%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $537k → 7%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $1.2M → 11%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $470k → 7%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $1.2M → 11%PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION USA: $464k → 7%JIAO TUNG UNIV ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $1.2M → 11%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$27M · 5 repeat orgs$610k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +22% since the first grant, against +5% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 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

5
3

Total granted

$27M
$150k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+22%
+5%

Still filing today

80%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $460k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalEducationOther
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

  • CT
    CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $16M · revenue +698%
  • PU
    PEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $5.4M · revenue -17%
  • TE
    TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION NA INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $4.5M · revenue -95%

Funded once

  • NY
    NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +5%
  • SF
    SCIENCE FESTIVAL FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $50k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $50k
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
04the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 12 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INC: $16,048,289 · OtherCHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY ALUMNI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA INCSTAMFORD UNIVERSITY: $1,050,000 · OtherSTAMFORD UNIVERSITY+4 more: $560,000 · OtherPEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION (USA): $5,416,015 · InternationalPEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION (…TSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION NA INC: $4,509,040 · InternationalTSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION NA INCFUDAN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $104,525 · EducationTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $100,000 · EducationNEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: $50,000 · EducationMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $50,000 · Education
Other$17,658,289International$9,925,055Education$304,525

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 budgetPEKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION (USA): $5,416,015 over 9y, 9.7% of budgetTSINGHUA EDUCATION FOUNDATION NA INC: $4,509,040 over 5y, 4.0% of budgetFUDAN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $104,525 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $50,000 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.

National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
National Philanthropic TrustPA9.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Leo Koguan Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Leo Koguan Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 35%
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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 · 0–40%
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 The Leo Koguan Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Leo Koguan 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 12 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 Leo Koguan’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