Skip to content

· Private foundation

The John and Mildred Medic Wuchenich Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$196k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$68k
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 2025.

International$633kReligion$192kRecreation & Sports$76kEducation$70kYouth Development$21kPhilanthropy$3kHealth$3k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $4k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $58k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $134k
$38,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS$67,832
LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (KOVIN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL)$66,200
BLUE MOUNTAIN ACADEMY$38,000
ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA)$20,070
OTHER CHARITIES$2,809
SIMS FOUNDATION$850
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 83% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%PENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS: $15k → 11%LAUREL LAKE CAMP AND RETREAT CENTER: $20k → 14%PINE SPRINGS RANCH CHRISTIAN YOUTH CAMP & RETREAT CENTER: $6k → 11%LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY CHURCH OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS: $10k → 14%DIABETES CAMPING AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES: $1k → 14%OROVILLE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH: $5k → 18%AMERICAN LIVER FOUNDATION: $2k → 17%ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $29k → 16%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE): $82k → 14%NEW MARKET SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH: $23k → 12%NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION OF SDA CHURCH: $15k → 6%PENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS: $15k → 11%LAUREL LAKE CAMP AND RETREAT CENTER: $15k → 14%PINE SPRINGS RANCH CHRISTIAN YOUTH CAMP & RETREAT CENTER: $736 → 11%UNIVERSITY CHURCH OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS: $3k → 14%OROVILLE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH: $6k → 18%ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $27k → 16%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION: $76k → 14%PENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS: $68k → 11%LAUREL LAKE CAMP AND RETREAT CENTER: $15k → 14%LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY: $2k → 14%ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $20k → 16%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (KOVIN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL): $73k → 14%BLUE MOUNTAIN ACADEMY: $38k → 11%LAUREL LAKE CAMP AND RETREAT CENTER: $15k → 14%OTHER CHARITIES: $3k → 14%ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $20k → 16%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (KOVIN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL): $66k → 14%BLUE MOUNTAIN ACADEMY: $5k → 11%LAUREL LAKE CAMP AND RETREAT CENTER: $10k → 14%CHRIST THE KING LUTHERAN CHURCH: $1k → 14%ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $13k → 16%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE): $64k → 14%SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY SDA CHURCH INNER CITY YOUTH PROGRAM: $9k → 14%ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $12k → 16%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE): $48k → 14%SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY SDA CHURCH INNER CITY YOUTH PROGRAM: $7k → 14%ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $8k → 16%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE): $42k → 14%ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $8k → 16%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE): $24k → 14%LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE): $13k → 14%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

IL
NY
IN
PA
CA
VA
MD
TX
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 38% of The John and Mildred Medic Wuchenich Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The John and Mildred Medic Wuchenich Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 47% 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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$840k · 12 repeat orgs$156k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -11% since the first grant, against -18% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
11

Total granted

$840k
$153k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-11%
-18%

Still filing today

8%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k 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
HealthEducationOther
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

  • LH
    LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE)
    6× · 2018–2023 · $273k
  • LH
    LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (KOVIN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL)
    2× · 2024–2025 · $140k
  • AO
    ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA)
    8× · 2018–2025 · $137k

Funded once

  • LH
    LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION
    one grant, 2017 · $76k · revenue -18%
  • NM
    NEW MARKET SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
    one grant, 2018 · $23k
  • NA
    NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION OF SDA CHURCH
    one grant, 2024 · $15k
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
05the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 26 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
2/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE): $272,946 · OtherLIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (JJ SMAJ ORPHANANGE)LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (KOVIN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL): $139,546 · OtherLIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION (KOVIN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL)ANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA): $136,995 · OtherANCHOR OF HOPE CHARITIES (ANCHOR ORPHANAGE COLLEGE-ZAMBIA)PENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS: $97,832 · OtherPENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTSLIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION: $76,000 · OtherLIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATIONLAUREL LAKE CAMP AND RETREAT CENTER: $75,000 · OtherLAUREL LAKE CAMP AND RETREAT CENTERBLUE MOUNTAIN ACADEMY: $43,000 · Other+15 more: $141,507 · Other+15 moreLa Sierra University: $10,750 · EducationLOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY: $2,000 · EducationAmerican Liver Foundation: $1,800 · HealthTHE SIMS FOUNDATION INC: $850 · Health
Other$982,826Education$12,750Health$2,650

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION: $76,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetLa Sierra University: $10,750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Liver Foundation: $1,800 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDiabetes Camping & Education Services: $1,000 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.

  • Who funds LIFELINE HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION ↗
  • Who funds La Sierra University ↗
  • Who funds LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds American Liver Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Diabetes Camping & Education Services ↗
  • Who funds THE SIMS FOUNDATION INC ↗

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.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 The John and Mildred Medic Wuchenich Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The John and Mildred Medic Wuchenich Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%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 · 0–20%
    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 26 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 John and Mildred Medic Wuchenich’s filings →

    More from the funding graph