· Private foundation
The Peter & Mary Chang Foundation
Its FY2024 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 clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k12 grants · $26k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $87k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| U OF NOTRE DAME | $150,000 |
| FU-JEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL PROJECT | $35,000 |
| INDUSTRIAL EVANGELICAL MISSION FOR | $20,000 |
| AMERICAN RED CROSS | $12,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,150 |
| FREE METHODIST CHURCH FOR WEISHIN T | $10,000 |
| FEEDING AMERICA | $8,000 |
| SUPERTECH FT | $5,000 |
| CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICE | $3,500 |
| SALVATION ARMY | $2,000 |
| SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK | $2,000 |
| BISHOP CIRCLE(CIRCLE OF EXCELLENCE) | $1,000 |
| CSCNA CHARITY CORPS( THROUGH KEN WA | $1,000 |
| CA PROVINCE OF SOCIETY OF JESUS THR | $1,000 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITY OF SANTA CLARA | $1,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $52k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 11% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +40% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
22 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 12% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $230k 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
- FUFU-JEN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION6× · 2017–2023 · $470k · revenue +63%
- IEINDUSTRIAL EVANGELICAL MISSIONS INC3× · 2018–2020 · $60k · revenue +17%
Feeding America5× · 2020–2024 · $48k · revenue +40%
Funded once
- CCCatholic Community Foundation of SCone grant, 2017 · $10k
- ACAOGF Covid-19 Relief Campaignone grant, 2020 · $5k
- CCCHINESE CANCER MEMORIAL FOUNDATIONone grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue -91%
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.
It is ccf's objective to establish training centers in communities all over the world teaching biblical truth to produce in all who are called to be leaders and participants lives in christ's fullness: 1. study god's word with life…
We are a catholic university named for saint john henry newman and founded by the adorers of the blood of christ for the purpose of empowering graduates to transform society. our core values (see schedule o for continuation)
Religious
Religious training: to assist the church in asia by training its leaders and equipping them to train others.
International needs has the vision to transform lives and change communities by helping christian nationals serve both god and neighbor within their own countries.
Assist missionaries form asian churches to integrate effectively into the target culture together with teir field partners and help them to undertake god-honoring initiatives which help the neediest people
To assist Vietnamese Franciscan Friars (OFM) in promoting the evangelization and charity mission of St Francis of Assisi in Vietnam.
Human rights in china, founded by chinese students and scholars in march 1989, is an international, chinese, nongovernmental organization with a mission to promote international human rights and advance the institutional protection of…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Online Giving Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Industrial Evangelical Missions Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 36 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
21 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. 21 of the 65 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 University of Notre Dame du Lac ↗
- Who funds FU-JEN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INDUSTRIAL EVANGELICAL MISSIONS INC ↗
- Who funds Feeding America ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds COVENANT HOUSE ↗
- Who funds Supertech FT Corp ↗
- Who funds Cscna Charity Corps Inc ↗
- Who funds CHINESE CANCER MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BIBLE STUDY FELLOWSHIP ↗
- Who funds OAKLAND CHINATOWN CHAMBER FOUNDATION dba OCCF ↗
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: American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Peter & Mary Chang 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 Peter & Mary Chang Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Peter & Mary Chang 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.