How much does 13 Wishes Foundation give?

13 Wishes Foundation reported 5 grants totaling $6,900 in its FY2024 IRS filing. It funded between 3 and 9 organizations a year over FY2017 to FY2023.

What does 13 Wishes Foundation fund?

By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2024, its largest causes are Religion (25%), Health (25%), Arts & Culture (24%).

Who are 13 Wishes Foundation's largest grantees?

By total granted over FY2017 to FY2024: St John's Healthcare Foundation ($40k), Chabad of Ventura ($29k), Ballet for All Kids ($26k).

Does 13 Wishes Foundation fund new organizations?

In FY2023, 25% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.

Does 13 Wishes Foundation accept unsolicited applications?

Its most recent filing reports that it accepts unsolicited grant applications.

Which funders back the same organizations as 13 Wishes Foundation?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include Ventura County Community Foundation, Amazonsmile Foundation.

Where is 13 Wishes Foundation based?

13 Wishes Foundation is based in CA.

13 Wishes Foundation

13 Wishes Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

13 Wishes Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$7k

Granted FY2024still arriving

Grants FY2024still arriving

States reached

$3k

Largest

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.

Religion$44kHealth$43kArts & Culture$42kEducation$16kYouth Development$14kPhilanthropy$10kRecreation & Sports$3kFood & Nutrition$1kOther$0

02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000

Median grant

States reached

$1.0M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
Individual grant recipient	$2,500
CHABAD OF VENTURA	$2,000
BALLET FOR ALL KIDS	$1,000
ST JOHN'S HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION	$900
LIVINGSTON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION	$500

02The need

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 (FY19–23, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 11% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$162k · 11 repeat orgs$8k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +23% since the first grant, against +2% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$162k

$8k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+23%

+2%

Still filing today

55%

60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

RenewedFirst-time

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

Arts & CultureHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsFood & NutritionOther

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

BF
BALLET FOR ALL KIDS
4× · 2017–2024 · $26k · revenue +23%
BG
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CAMARILLO
4× · 2017–2023 · $12k · revenue +3%
LM
LIVINGSTON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION co MUSICK PEELER & GARRETT LLP
3× · 2017–2024 · $8k · revenue +56%

Funded once

TB
THE BUTKIS FOUNDATION
one grant, 2018 · $3k
AB
Amateur Baseball Development Group Inc
one grant, 2018 · $3k · revenue +2%
BB
BRYAN BROTHERS FOUNDATION INC
one grant, 2019 · $2k · revenue +21%

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.

The Bacardi Family Foundation

Philanthropy

C K Blandin Foundation

Philanthropy

Jb and Emily Van Nuys Charities

—

The Brandenburg Family Foundation

Philanthropy

The Babinski Foundation

Animals

Barry Bonds Family Foundation

—

The Cardigan Foundation

Philanthropy

Ab CarVal Foundation

Philanthropy

The Baldwin Foundation

—

Catalina Island Foundation

Youth Development

Callejo-Botello Foundation

Philanthropy

Brian Littleton Foundation

Education

How this is measured

The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of Camarillo; the most unlike its peers is Livingston Memorial Foundation co Musick Peeler & Garrett Llp. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

04the 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 17 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

10/10

Grantees still filing

7/10

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Other$135,260Arts & Culture$28,900Recreation & Sports$2,500Human Services$2,250Philanthropy$2,000Food & Nutrition$1,000

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

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.

Ventura County Community FoundationCA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Ventura County Community Foundation · 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 13 Wishes Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from 13 Wishes Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

2report 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, 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.

Play a game based on 13 Wishes’ 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