Skip to content
Yu Lin Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Yu Lin Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$147k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$80k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

International$324kEducation$280kReligion$132kScience & Tech$50kHealth$40kArts & Culture$1kCivil Rights$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $64k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $80k
$34,200
Median grant
3
States reached
$2.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WESTERN PACIFIC FELLOWSHIP PROJECT$80,000
INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION$34,200
LAGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE$30,000
SIMPLY HELP FOUNDATION$3,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY18–25, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SIMPLY HELP FOUNDATION: $4k → 14%SIMPLY HELP FOUNDATION: $3k → 14%SIMPLY HELP FOUNDATION: $2k → 14%SIMPLY HELP FOUNDATION: $2k → 14%SIMPLY HELP FOUNDATION: $1k → 14%ASIAN FUTURE FOUNATION: $1k → 17%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 41% of Yu Lin Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Yu Lin Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 3.4% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$419k · 7 repeat orgs$105k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
7

Total granted

$419k
$105k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+11%

Still filing today

43%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesPhilanthropyInternationalOther
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

  • LC
    LAGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
    5× · 2018–2025 · $160k
  • WP
    WESTERN PACIFIC FELLOWSHIP PROJECT INC
    2× · 2023–2025 · $130k · 100% of their budget
  • NF
    NTUAA FOUNDATION
    6× · 2017–2024 · $107k

Funded once

  • EF
    EEP FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2021 · $50k
  • TA
    TAINAN AN-NAN HOSPITAL
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
  • CH
    CHINATOWN HEALTH CLINIC FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +11%
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The United China Education Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
2
Us - China Policy Foundation
—
3
Zhiyuan Yining Foundation
Philanthropy
4
Zhang Initiative Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Xiamen University Education Foundation of N Americ
Education
6
World Education Fund
Education
7
Shoucheng Zhang Foundation
Education
8
Shenpen Foundation
International
9
Hua Xia Education Foundation
Education
10
Yin-Zhang Family Charity and Education Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Yin Education Foundation
Philanthropy
12
The Luol Deng Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Zigen Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Eep Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 16 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC: $304,000 · InternationalINSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INCWESTERN PACIFIC FELLOWSHIP PROJECT INC: $130,000 · InternationalWESTERN PACIFIC FELLOWSHIP PROJECT INCLAGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $160,000 · OtherLAGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGENTUAA FOUNDATION: $106,500 · OtherNTUAA FOUNDATIONEEP FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · OtherEEP FOUNDATION INCTAINAN AN-NAN HOSPITAL: $30,000 · OtherTAINAN AN-NAN HOSPITAL+5 more: $22,900 · Other+5 moreTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $50,000 · EducationSIMPLY HELP FOUNDATION: $12,000 · Human ServicesASIAN FUTURE FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 · Human ServicesCHINATOWN HEALTH CLINIC FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · PhilanthropySTUF UNITED FUND INC: $2,000 · Philanthropy
International$434,000Other$369,400Education$50,000Human Services$13,000Philanthropy$12,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetINSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC: $304,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetWESTERN PACIFIC FELLOWSHIP PROJECT INC: $130,000 over 2y, 100% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSIMPLY HELP FOUNDATION: $12,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetCHINATOWN HEALTH CLINIC FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE ZIGEN FUND INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetLIFE EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $3,800 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetSTUF UNITED FUND INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetASIAN FUTURE FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Yu Lin Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Yu Lin Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 16 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Yu Lin’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