Skip to content

· Public charity

National Wic Association

The NATIONAL WIC ASSOCIATION provides its members with tools and leadership to expand and sustain effective nutrition services for mothers and young children.

$110k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$33k
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Health$549kFood & Nutrition$216kEmployment$15k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $98,648, the rows itemized in this filing. The $109,876 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $11,228 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k7 grants · $55k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $43k
$8,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PIEDMONT HEALTH SERVICES INC$33,166
FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH$10,284
HEALTH SERVICES - WIC$9,000
COLUMBUS PUBLIC HEALTH$8,000
FORSYTH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA$8,000
URBANA PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT$8,000
COUNTY OF INYO$7,732
RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM PUBLIC HEALTH$7,725
PHFE-WIC PROGRAM$6,741
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 76% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CHARLES DREW HEALTH CENTER-WIC: $90k → 12%RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM PUBLIC HEALTH: $8k → 11%COUNTY OF INYO: $8k → 11%PHFE-WIC PROGRAM: $7k → 14%CALIFORNIA WIC ASSOCIATION: $75k → 16%LANAI COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: $75k → 9%KENMORE NY WIC OFFICE: $55k → 13%NEW YORK CITY HLTH & HOSPITALS CORP: $55k → 17%HEALTH CAREER CONNECTION INC: $15k → 14%FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (FDOH): $15k → 15%MACOMB COUNTY HEALTH DEPT: $35k → 10%DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT #10: $7k → 13%MICHIGAN DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: $20k → 16%HEALTH SERVICES - WIC: $9k → 18%AFFINIA HEALTHCARE: $10k → 21%JOSEPHINE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT WIC PROGRAM: $55k → 18%PIEDMONT HEALTH SERVICES INC: $33k → 13%COUNTY OF GUILFORD: $9k → 16%FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH: $10k → 13%NORTH CENTRAL HEALTH DISTRICT: $12k → 23%EL PASO COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH: $13k → 9%COLUMBUS PUBLIC HEALTH: $8k → 15%SHENANDOAH VALLEY MEDICAL SYSTEM INC: $9k → 11%URBANA PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT: $8k → 19%VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL JERSEY: $6k → 6%ST JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: $7k → 12%HARFORD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT: $9k → 7%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
MI
NY
OR
OH
NJ
CA
CO
NE
MO
WV
MD
NC
HI
LA
AL
GA
FL
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 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
Regence Health Network Inc

To be a transformational leader in the delivery of integrated, innovative, and cost effective health services; we realize this by holding ourselves accountable to the highest standards in patient service, safety, and quality.

Health
2
United Health Centers of the San Joaquin

The organization is committed to the lifetime wellness of the communities by providing accessible, comprehensive quality health care to everyone with compassion and respect, regardless of ability to pay.

Health
3
North Country Family Health Center Inc

To improve the health, wellness, and quality of life of all individuals in our community by providing accessible, high quality, affordable, patient-centered and integrated health services.

Health
4
Eastern Iowa Health Center

Eastern Iowa Health Center provides accessible, high-quality healthcare services to those in need in the Linn County, Iowa area. Our services include family medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, labor and delivery, behavioral…

Health
5
Nevada Health Centers Inc

NVHC provides health services throughout the State of Nevada. Health services include OB/GYN, Pediatrics, Internal Medicine, Primary medical, Behavioral Health and dental care services. NVHC operates a mobile mammography clinic, two mobile…

Health
6
Community Clinic of Maui Inc

To provide culturally sensitive, coordinated primary care services emphasizing education, prevention, and advocacy, regardless of one's ability to pay.

Health
7
Waimanalo Health Center

Waimanalo health center is committed to providing the highest level of primary and preventive health services, with special attention to the needs of native hawaiians and the medically underserved, and improving the health and wellness of…

Health
8
Via Care Community Health Center

Providing health care services to the poor and underserved of los angeles.

Health
9
Valley Health Systems Inc

To provide quality healthcare to all individuals, emphasizing outreach to those who are underserved. valley health strives to ensure that quality healthcare is readily accessible to everyone and serves patients regardless of their ability…

Health
10
Community Medical Centers Inc

The organization provides primary medical, behavior health, and dental care to the population of san joaquin, and solano counties without regard to patients' ability to pay.

Health
11
Indiana Health Centers Inc

Improving the health status of the community at large with special emphasis on those who, because of their poverty, location in rural areas, or for other reasons, have health needs which are not being properly addressed.

Health
12
Waikiki Health

To provide high quality medical and social services that are affordable and accessible for everyone regardless of ability to pay.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Affinia Healthcare; the most unlike its peers is California Wic Association. 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

9 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. 9 of the 30 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION: $55,000 · OtherNEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATIONKENMORE NY WIC OFFICE: $55,000 · OtherKENMORE NY WIC OFFICEHENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARY: $55,000 · OtherHENNEPIN COUNTY LIBRARYJOSEPHINE COUNTY DEP'T OF HEALTH: $55,000 · OtherJOSEPHINE COUNTY DEP'T OF HEALTHDAUGHTERS OF CHARITY SERVICES: $55,000 · OtherDAUGHTERS OF CHARITY SERVICESMacomb Community Action: $34,899 · OtherMacomb Community ActionMICHIGAN DEP OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: $20,400 · Other+18 more: $167,589 · Other+18 moreCHARLES DREW HEALTH CENTER INC: $89,852 · HealthCHARLES DREW HEALTH CENTER INCLANAI COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: $75,000 · HealthLANAI COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERPIEDMONT HEALTH SERVICES INC: $33,166 · HealthPIEDMONT HEALTH SERVICES INCSHENANDOAH VALLEY MEDICAL SYSTEM I: $9,000 · HealthCALIFORNIA WIC ASSOCIATION: $75,000 · Food & NutritionCALIFORNIA…
Other$497,888Health$207,018Food & Nutrition$75,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHARLES DREW HEALTH CENTER INC: $89,852 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCALIFORNIA WIC ASSOCIATION: $75,000 over 1y, 6.7% of budgetLANAI COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: $75,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetPIEDMONT HEALTH SERVICES INC: $33,166 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAffinia Healthcare: $9,707 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHEALTH SERVICES INC: $9,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHENANDOAH VALLEY MEDICAL SYSTEM I: $9,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION ENTERPRISES INC: $6,741 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL JERSEY: $5,752 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds CHARLES DREW HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA WIC ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds LANAI COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds PIEDMONT HEALTH SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds Affinia Healthcare ↗
  • Who funds HEALTH SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds SHENANDOAH VALLEY MEDICAL SYSTEM I ↗
  • Who funds PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION ENTERPRISES INC ↗
  • Who funds VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL JERSEY ↗

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.

Reach Out and Read IncMA16.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Reach Out and Read Inc · Direct Relief · American Heart Association Inc

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 National Wic Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Wic Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    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
    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.

    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 30 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 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 National Wic Association’s filings →

    More from the funding graph