· Private foundation
Wild Wisdom Foundation Inc (Formerly a Cerami & a Dunne Fdn for World Health)
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
Read this first · the figures below need context
69% of Wild Wisdom Foundation Inc (Formerly a Cerami & a Dunne Fdn for World Health)’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 14 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2024, the last year Wild Wisdom Foundation Inc (Formerly a Cerami & a Dunne Fdn for World Health) named its own grantees at scale: 18 organizations, $2M. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 62% of WILD WISDOM FOUNDATION INC (FORMERLY A CERAMI & A DUNNE FDN FOR WORLD HEALTH)’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k10 grants · $20k
- $10k–50k31 grants · $561k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $130k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| RAYMOND JAMES CHARITABLE (ANNIE DUNNE FUND) | $1,000,000 |
| RAYMOND JAMES CHARITABLE (GLORIANA FUND) | $400,000 |
| OCEANSIDE MUSEUM OF ART | $66,041 |
| WILDCOAST | $63,500 |
| THE HUMAN NATURE CENTER | $38,000 |
| SAGE GARDEN PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA | $35,000 |
| DARNALL CHARTER SCHOOL | $30,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $30,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| HAWTHORNE ELEMENTARY | $20,000 |
| VISTA LA MESA ACADEMY | $20,000 |
| COMMON VISION | $20,000 |
| OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE | $20,000 |
| ENCINITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (CAPRI) | $20,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY19–19, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +36% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
118 repeat relationships — 41 still active in FY2024, 77 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call). Read against FY2024, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL6× · 2019–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +147%- NHNORTHWELL HEALTH FOUNDATION2× · 2017–2018 · $500k · revenue +17%
- WWILDCOAST3× · 2023–2025 · $394k · revenue +21%
Funded once
- GDGLORIANA DONOR ADVISED FUNDone grant, 2021 · $1.5M
- OUOXFORD UNIVERSITYone grant, 2017 · $142k
- NINATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGINGone grant, 2017 · $100k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
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…
Conserving nature through science and discovery.
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…
Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.
California ocean science trust (ost) is a non-profit organization dedicated to accelerating progress towards a healthy and productive ocean future for california. created by state legislation, ost bridges the gap between cutting-edge…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
The institute is dedicated to scientific research, the results of which are used to promote public awareness and education in the areas of conservation biology and ecology,including the wise use of natural resources.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Explore Ecology and the most unlike its peers is Muttly Crew Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 35 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
68 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 68 of the 192 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds NATURE COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds RAYMOND JAMES CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT FUND ↗
- Who funds NORTHWELL HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WILDCOAST ↗
- Who funds Ocean Knoll PTA ↗
- Who funds OCEANSIDE MUSEUM OF ART ↗
- Who funds The Human Nature Center ↗
- Who funds STRATEGIC ENERGY INNOVATIONS ↗
- Who funds Life Lab Science Program ↗
- Who funds COMMON VISION ↗
- Who funds OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds GUIDED DISCOVERIES INC ↗
- Who funds ECOLOGY CENTER ↗
- Who funds PASADENA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds EXPLORE ECOLOGY ↗
- Who funds MONARCH SCHOOL PROJECT ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The San Diego Foundation · Rancho Santa Fe Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego · The Sprouts Healthy Communities Foundation · Sempra Foundation · Rancho Santa Fe Garden Club · The Conrad Prebys Foundation · Coastal Community Foundation · David C Copley Foundation · The Nordson Corporation Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · Patagoniaorg
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Wild Wisdom Foundation Inc (Formerly a Cerami & a Dunne Fdn for World Health) funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Save the Children Federation Inc — 30% of income from government
- Foodcorps Inc — 21% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.