Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

KCAL Ins Foundation

(1)TO AWARD GRANTS TO STUDENTS WITH INTEREST IN INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND PROVIDE INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.

$118k
Granted FY2023
19
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$71k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

66% of KCAL Ins Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Schwab Charitable Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 10 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year KCAL Ins Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 12 organizations, $118k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

6
20
7
21
11
22
12
23
10
24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What you fund
0193% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20202024.

Religion$252kPhilanthropy$122kCommunity Improvement$50kCivil Rights$46kYouth Development$19kHuman Services$18kHealth$15kCrime & Legal$7kOther$0
02FY2023 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k17 grants · $37k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $71k
$2,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST PROGRESS SOCIETY$71,000
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHINESE S$10,000
BUDDHAS LIGHT INTERNATIONAL LOS ANGELES$6,000
Individual grant recipient$6,000
ASIAN BUSINESS CENTER$4,500
ASIAN PACIFIC COMMUNITY FUND$3,000
SFS SQUAD CLUB$2,500
ALADS CARE FOUNDATION$2,200
OVERSEAS COMMUNITY CARE NETWORK OF LA$2,000
CHINESE AMERICAN COALITION FOR COMPASSIO$2,000
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION$2,000
SPECIAL OLYMPICS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA$1,500
NATIONAL ASIAN PEACE OFFICERS ASSC$1,000
TAIWANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE$1,000
CALIFORNIA ASIAN PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIAT$1,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 98% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%GOLD HOUSE FOUNDATION INC: $10k → 14%THE NATIONAL ACE FOUNDATION: $5k → 14%GOLD HOUSE FOUNDATION INC: $3k → 14%INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN MISSIONS: $500 → 10%GOLD HOUSE FOUNDATION INC: $200 → 14%ASIAN YOUTH CENTER: $2k → 14%ASIAN YOUTH CENTER: $2k → 14%DIAMOND BAR CHINESE-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: $500 → 14%CHANG SEN XUE LONGEVITY ASSOCIATION USA: $3k → 14%CHANG SEN XUE LONGEVITY ASSOCIATION USA: $500 → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$384k · 14 repeat orgs$79k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +73% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.

14 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2023, 4 since wound down; 16 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
20

Total granted

$384k
$52k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+73%
+1%

Still filing today

50%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementArts & CulturePublic Safety & DisasterHealthYouth DevelopmentOther

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

  • AB
    ASIAN BUSINESS CENTER
    5× · 2020–2024 · $41k · revenue +73% · 40% of their budget
  • GH
    GOLD HOUSE FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $13k · revenue ×19
  • NA
    NATIONAL ASIAN PEACE OFFICERS ASSOC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $3k · revenue +10%

Funded once

  • IS
    INDUSTRY SHERIFF'S YOUTH ATHLETIC LEAGUE
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue +1%
  • RO
    RIVER OF LIFE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN GREATE
    one grant, 2020 · $10k
  • LM
    LACUSC MEDICAL CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $9k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Asian American Advocacy Alliance
Community Improvement
2
The Asian-American Senior Citizen Association
Human Services
3
Uc Chinese Alumni Foundation
4
Asian Advisory Committee On Crime

Asian advisory committee on crime is a local non-profit organization located in oakland california and is based in oakland chinatown. their mission is to bring asian committee organizations together to provide crime awareness. they help to…

Crime & Legal
5
Alliance for Asian American Justice Inc

Coordinate pro bono legal aid for victims of anti-Asian violence.

Civil Rights
6
Asian Community Center Inc
Public Benefit
7
Taiwanese-American Foundation
8
Chinese American Asso of West Covina

To unite the Chinese American community in promoting West Covina as a city of diversity, education, culture, art, and music. Sponsoring and creating new programs, encouraging the youth to follow our footsteps for future generations.…

Recreation & Sports
9
Chinese American Womens Benevolent Association
Philanthropy
10
Chao Charitable Foundation

The primary mission of this organization will be to help others appreciate the beauty of chinese culture and heritage.

Education
11
San Francisco Taipei Sister City Committee

City to City Local Governments, Businesses, Cultural Activities and Economic Developments

Human Services
12
Asian Pacific Islander Capitol Assn

The Asian Pacific Islander Capitol Association (APICA) is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization comprised of legislative staffers, advocates, and other API professionals based in the State Capitol community of Sacramento,…

Community Improvement

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Taiwan Center Foundation of Greater Los Angeles and the most unlike its peers is Friends of Industry Sheriff Station. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyPolice Officer AssociationsPerforming Arts EducationLocal Business ChambersChristian Churches and Mini…Youth Development & Interve…Buddhist Temples and Monast…Ethnic Community Organizati…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 20 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number25%17%<5yr16%10%5–10yr20%21%10–20yr17%38%20–35yr10%14%35–55yr12%0%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value25%1%<5yr16%4%5–10yr20%13%10–20yr17%34%20–35yr10%48%35–55yr12%0%55yr+

The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 17% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 3% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
3%1/30
the rest of the field
15%
9,957/65,084

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.

04the grantee network

27 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 27 of the 52 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/27
Grantees still filing
15/27
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST PROGRESS SOCIETY — $201,000 · OtherINTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST PROGRESS SOCIETYSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHINESE S — $36,400 · OtherSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHINESE SBUDDHAS LIGHT INTERNATIONAL LOS ANGELES — $36,000 · OtherBUDDHAS LIGHT INTERNATIONAL LOS ANGELESIndividual grant recipient — $34,480 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+34 more — $71,410 · Other+34 moreDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC — $118,000 · PhilanthropyDONOR ADVISED CHARITABL…+1 more — $2,200 · PhilanthropyASIAN BUSINESS CENTER — $40,500 · Community Improvement+1 more — $500 · Community ImprovementGOLD HOUSE FOUNDATION INC — $13,290 · Human ServicesACE FOUNDATION — $5,000 · Human ServicesCHANG SEN XUE LONGEVITY ASSOCIATION OF USA — $3,000 · Human ServicesASIAN YOUTH CENTER — $3,000 · Human Services+2 more — $1,000 · Human ServicesINDUSTRY SHERIFF'S YOUTH ATHLETIC LEAGUE — $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentBUDDHIST TZU CHI FOUNDATION — $5,000 · ReligionFRIENDS OF INDUSTRY SHERIFF STATION — $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION — $2,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Other$379,290Philanthropy$120,200Community Improvement$41,000Human Services$25,290Youth Development$10,000Religion$5,000Public Safety & Disaster$4,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC — $118,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetASIAN BUSINESS CENTER — $40,500 over 5y, 40% of budgetGOLD HOUSE FOUNDATION INC — $13,290 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetINDUSTRY SHERIFF'S YOUTH ATHLETIC LEAGUE — $10,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetACE FOUNDATION — $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetASIAN PACIFIC COMMUNITY FUND OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA — $4,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTAIWANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE — $3,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetNATIONAL ASIAN PEACE OFFICERS ASSOC — $3,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCHANG SEN XUE LONGEVITY ASSOCIATION OF USA — $3,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetASIAN YOUTH CENTER — $3,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetALADS CARES FOUNDATION — $2,200 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTAIWAN CENTER FOUNDATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES — $2,100 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCHINESE AMERICAN COALITION FOR COMPASSIONATE CARE — $2,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetAlhambra Police Foundation — $2,000 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION — $2,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetCENTER FOR ASIAN AMERICANS UNITED FOR SELF-EMPOWERMENT INC — $1,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INC — $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL CREATIVE CLASS ALLIANCE — $1,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetCHINESE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF LOS ANGELES — $500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetASIAN MENTAL HEALTH PROJECT — $500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetDIAMOND BAR CHINESE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION — $500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetINTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN MISSIONS INC — $500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICE CENTER INC — $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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.

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.

Asian Pacific Community Fund of Southern CaliforniaCA19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Asian Pacific Community Fund of Southern California · Cathay Bank Foundation · California Community Foundation · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 KCAL Ins 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%your share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 52 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph