Skip to content
Tom Do Hing Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Tom Do Hing Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$4k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Arts & Culture$38kHousing & Shelter$3kEducation$500Human Services$200Community Improvement$100
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$17k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHINESE CULTURAL FOUNDATION$3,500
CONTEMPORARY ASIAN THEATER SCENE$350
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%CONTEMPORARY ASIAN THEATER SCENE: $500 → 8%PURPLE SILK MUSIC EDUCATION FOUNDAT: $250 → 10%CENTER FOR ASIAN AMERICAN MEDIA: $200 → 10%CONTEMPORARY ASIAN THEATER SCENE: $500 → 8%PURPLE SILK MUSIC EDUCATION FOUNDAT: $250 → 10%NIHONMACHI STREET FAIR: $100 → 10%CONTEMPORARY ASIAN THEATER SCENE: $350 → 8%PURPLE SILK MUSIC EDUCATION FOUNDAT: $200 → 10%CHINESE NEWCOMERS SCHOOL: $500 → 10%CONTEMPORARY ASIAN THEATER SCENE: $300 → 8%CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CEN: $1k → 10%CONTEMPORARY ASIAN THEATER SCENE: $250 → 8%CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CEN: $1k → 10%WU YEE CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $200 → 10%CHINESE CULTURE CENTER: $5k → 10%CHINESE CULTURAL FOUNDATION: $5k → 10%CHINESE CULTURE CENTER: $5k → 10%CHINESE CULTURAL FOUNDATION: $5k → 10%CHINESE CULTURE CENTER: $5k → 10%CHINESE CULTURAL FOUNDATION: $4k → 10%CHINESE CULTURAL FOUNDATION: $3k → 10%CHINESE CULTURE CENTER: $3k → 10%FRIENDS OF ROOTS: $250 → 10%FRIENDS OF ROOTS: $240 → 10%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.
$40k · 6 repeat orgs$1k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
4

Total granted

$40k
$1k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+51%
+74%

Still filing today

67%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CultureHousing & ShelterCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • CC
    CHINESE CULTURE FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO
    4× · 2017–2021 · $18k · revenue +243%
  • CC
    CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER
    2× · 2017–2021 · $3k · revenue +37%
  • CA
    Contemporary Asian Theatre Scene Inc
    5× · 2020–2024 · $2k · revenue +51%

Funded once

  • CN
    CHINESE NEWCOMERS SCHOOL
    one grant, 2021 · $500
  • WY
    WU YEE CHILDREN'S SERVICESgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $200 · revenue +285%
  • CF
    Center for Asian American Media
    one grant, 2017 · $200 · revenue 0%
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, 2017–2025.

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. 7 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)
3
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

CHINESE CULTURE FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO: $18,000 · Arts & CultureCHINESE CULTURE FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCOContemporary Asian Theatre Scene Inc: $1,900 · Arts & CultureContemporary Asian Theatre Scene Inc+2 more: $690 · Arts & CultureCHINESE CULTURAL FOUNDATION: $16,500 · OtherCHINESE CULTURAL FOUNDATIONPURPLE SILK MUSIC EDUCATION FOUNDAT: $700 · Other+2 more: $700 · OtherCHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $2,788 · Housing & ShelterNIHONMACHI STREET FAIR INCORPORATED: $100 · Community Improvement
Arts & Culture$20,590Other$17,900Housing & Shelter$2,788Community Improvement$100

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHINESE CULTURE FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO: $18,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetCHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $2,788 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetContemporary Asian Theatre Scene Inc: $1,900 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetFRIENDS OF ROOTS: $490 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetWU YEE CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCenter for Asian American Media: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNIHONMACHI STREET FAIR INCORPORATED: $100 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

The San Francisco Fou…Asian Pacific FundMcNabb FoundationSilicon Valley Commun…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The San Francisco FoundationCA15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The San Francisco Foundation · Asian Pacific Fund · McNabb Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Tom Do Hing Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Tom Do Hing Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 Tom Do Hing Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Tom Do Hing 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 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Tom Do Hing’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