Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Oak Foundation Inc

Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$15k
Granted FY2026still arriving
4
Grants FY2026still arriving
3
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2026.

Religion$16kScience & Tech$10kInternational$6kHuman Services$2kOther$0
02FY2026 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2026

  • Under $10k3 grants · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$3,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$45k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
National Chung Hsing University$10,000
princeton christian fellowship$3,000
Go Live Serve International Inc$1,500
Chinese Christian Herald Crusades$500
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.

US giving: 71% of grant dollars ($24k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 30% that went abroad ($10k) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY23–26, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%Chinese Christian Herald Crusades: $500 → 7%Chinese Christian Herald Crusades: $500 → 7%Chinese Christian Herald Crusades: $500 → 7%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.

Beyond the US: 30% of all-years giving ($10k)

1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
Taiwan$10k · 1 grant
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$18k · 3 repeat orgs$16k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2026, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
6

Total granted

$18k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-7%
+42%

Still filing today

100%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25’26
ReligionHuman 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

  • PC
    PRINCETON CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
    6× · 2021–2026 · $11k · revenue +96%
  • GL
    GO LIVE SERVE INTERNATIONAL INC
    4× · 2023–2026 · $6k · revenue -15%
  • CC
    CHINESE CHRISTIAN HERALD CRUSADES INC
    3× · 2023–2026 · $2k · revenue -7%

Funded once

  • CC
    Cornerstone church of west Los Angeles
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • CR
    Christian Renewal Ministries Incgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $1k · revenue +42%
  • LI
    L I Elim Chinese church
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
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

5 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. 5 of the 10 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)
5/5
Grantees still filing
2/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PRINCETON CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP: $11,000 · OtherPRINCETON CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIPNational Chung Hsing University: $10,000 · OtherNational Chung Hsing UniversityCornerstone church of west Los Angeles: $2,000 · OtherCornerstone church of west Los AngelesChristian Renewal Ministries Inc: $1,000 · OtherL I Elim Chinese church: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $1,000 · Other+1 more: $200 · OtherGO LIVE SERVE INTERNATIONAL INC: $5,700 · ReligionGO LIVE SERVE INTERN…THE SPRING INC: $500 · ReligionTHE SPRING INCCHINESE CHRISTIAN HERALD CRUSADES INC: $1,500 · Human Services
Other$26,200Religion$6,200Human Services$1,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPRINCETON CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP: $11,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetGO LIVE SERVE INTERNATIONAL INC: $5,700 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetCHINESE CHRISTIAN HERALD CRUSADES INC: $1,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetChristian Renewal Ministries Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE SPRING INC: $500 over 1y, 2.2% 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.

  • Who funds PRINCETON CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP ↗
  • Who funds GO LIVE SERVE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
  • Who funds CHINESE CHRISTIAN HERALD CRUSADES INC ↗
  • Who funds Christian Renewal Ministries Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE SPRING INC ↗

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.

Paypal Charitable Giving FundDC10.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · 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 Oak Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Oak Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 10 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Oak’s filings →

    More from the funding graph