Skip to content
Westcliff Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Westcliff 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.

$2k
Granted FY2023
1
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2023.

Environment$4kPhilanthropy$4kAnimals$2kHealth$2kYouth Development$500International$500Civil Rights$500Housing & Shelter$400Other$0
02FY2023 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,400
Median grant
1
States reached
$445k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
World Wildlife Fund$2,400
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 (FY20–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK: $1k → 10%NATIVE ANIMAL RESCUE: $800 → 13%DIRECT RELIEF: $500 → 14%AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: $500 → 17%World Wildlife Fund: $2k → 14%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SANTA CRUZ: $3k → 13%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $1k → 14%COMMUNITY BRIDGES: $400 → 13%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SANTA CRUZ: $500 → 13%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.
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
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
2
Chile-California Council

The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…

International
3
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
4
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
5
Amazon Conservation Team

The amazon conservation team (act) partners with indigenous and other local communities to protect tropical forests and strengthen traditional culture.

Science & Tech
6
Environmental Defense Center

The organization protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy and legal action.

Crime & Legal
7
Rare

Rare inspires change so people and nature thrive.

Environment
8
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
9
California Wildlife Foundation

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

Animals
10
Nature and Culture International

Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.

Environment
11
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—
12
Natura Bolivia Foundation

The Natura Bolivia Foundation is dedicated to implementing, and evaluating the impact of conservation and development programs, with a focus on watershed conservation, protected areas, and incentive based conservation in Bolivia. We work…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Foundation Santa Cruz County; the most unlike its peers is Warming Center Program. 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

11 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. 11 of the 13 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
9/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $3,900 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ…WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $2,400 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INCRainforest Action Network: $1,000 · EnvironmentRainforest Action NetworkHUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: $1,000 · AnimalsHUMANE FARMING ASSOCIA…CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $1,000 · AnimalsCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL …NATIVE ANIMAL RESCUE: $800 · AnimalsNATIVE ANIMAL RESCUEPLANNED PARENTHOOD: $1,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTH…AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: $500 · OtherAMERICAN CIVIL …WARMING CENTER PROGRAM: $400 · OtherWARMING CENTER …BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $500 · Youth DevelopmentNAMI SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $500 · HealthDIRECT RELIEF: $500 · InternationalCommunity Bridges: $400 · Food & Nutrition
Philanthropy$3,900Environment$3,400Animals$2,800Other$1,900Youth Development$500Health$500International$500Food & Nutrition$400

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 budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $3,900 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $2,400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRainforest Action Network: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIVE ANIMAL RESCUE: $800 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNAMI SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDIRECT RELIEF: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCommunity Bridges: $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWARMING CENTER PROGRAM: $400 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.

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.

Community Foundation …Kaiser Foundation Hos…Monterey Peninsula Fo…American Endowment Fo…American Online Givin…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation Santa Cruz CountyCA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation Santa Cruz County · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Monterey Peninsula Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Westcliff Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Westcliff Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 13 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Westcliff’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