· Private foundation
The Steve y Kim Foundation Co Steve y Kim President
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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 87% of THE STEVE Y KIM FOUNDATION CO STEVE Y KIM PRESIDENT’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
- $250k+1 grant · $720k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| DREAM HOPE FUTURE FOUNDATION | $720,000 |
| GLOBAL MEDICAL MISSIONS ALLIANCE | $20,000 |
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 US giving — 24% of grant dollars ($2.6M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 76% that went abroad ($8.1M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $567k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 93% 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.
Beyond the US — 76% of all-years giving ($8.1M)
5 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +13% since the first grant, against +9% for the ones you funded once.
27 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 26 since wound down; 1 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, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
- BTBRIDGE TO HOME SCV5× · 2018–2023 · $314k · revenue +381%
- SCSanta Clarita Valley Committee On Aging5× · 2017–2023 · $187k · revenue +1%
KOREAN AMERICAN FAMILY SERVICES INC4× · 2017–2020 · $181k · revenue +88%
Funded once
- YUYANBIAN UNIV OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLone grant, 2017 · $246k
- ALASSISTANCE LEAGUEone grant, 2021 · $100k
- WSWILLIAM S HART EDUCATION FOUNDATION WISH EDUCATION FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue -5%
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.
Dedicated to assisting kern county residents who need financial assistance in obtaining treatment for cancer and associated diseases.
The mission of the korean american community center of san francisco and bay area (kaccsf) is to build community and enhance the quality of life for the korean american residents in the san francisco and bay area. we are a place-based…
The organization promotes projects and programs that provide culturally and professionally competent services to populations in need. organization believes that healthier individuals and communities result from a combination of outreach,…
Family connections christian adoptions exists to assist the waiting children of the world into permanent, loving families. it is our belief that god's love is best expressed in the family. the work of fcca is a living expression of our…
The korean american community foundation of san francisco uplifts and connects the korean-american community through philanthropy.
To support and serve better for the furtherance of the rights and interests of the korean community at los angeles
With assistance of volunteers from the community and faith groups, the organization works to assist homeless children and their families to achieve sustainable independence, while offering hope, compassion, and preserving individual…
Cancer support community valley/ventura/santa barbaras mission is to uplift and strengthen people impacted by cancer by providing support, fostering compassionate communities, and breaking down barriers to care.
Serving the educational, financial, and emotional needs of kern county cancer patients and their families. providing assistance to individuals with financial hardship to relieve medical debt.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Korean American Family Services Inc and the most unlike its peers is Los Angeles Symphony. 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 21 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
24 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. 24 of the 63 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 BRIDGE TO HOME SCV ↗
- Who funds Santa Clarita Valley Committee On Aging ↗
- Who funds KOREAN AMERICAN FAMILY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY LOS ANGELES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HAPPY VILLAGE ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM S HART EDUCATION FOUNDATION WISH EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HOMES FOR FAMILIES ↗
- Who funds The College of the Canyons Foundation ↗
- Who funds MICHAEL HOEFFLIN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Triumph Foundation ↗
- Who funds MPAK INC ↗
- Who funds CIRCLE OF HOPE INC ↗
- Who funds Child & Family Center ↗
- Who funds YANA MINISTRY INC ↗
- Who funds Kkottongnae Inc ↗
- Who funds METAVIVOR RESEARCH AND SUPPORT INC ↗
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: The Henry Mayo Newhall Foundation · California Community Foundation · Kang Dream Foundation · Charles and Patricia Rasmussen Family Foundation · Open Stewardship Foundation · The Ahmanson Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Conrad N Hilton Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 Steve y Kim Foundation Co Steve y Kim President 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.