Skip to content

· Private foundation

Woravka Family Foundation for Children

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.

$188k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$40k
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.

Crime & Legal$245kEducation$205kHousing & Shelter$197kYouth Development$183kHealth$122kInternational$91kHuman Services$90kCivil Rights$30k
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $28k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $160k
$10,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$4.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WAYMAKERS HB YOUTH SHELTER$40,000
PADUA FRANCISCAN HIGH SCHOOL$25,000
LAGUNA BEACH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION$15,000
OAKVIEW COMUNIDAD$15,000
ROBYNE'S NEST$15,000
ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER$10,000
COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF ORANGE COUNTY(CASA)$10,000
BLOOD CANCER UNITED$10,000
THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER OF HB$10,000
ORANGEWOOD FOUNDATION$10,000
CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD)$5,000
BRYNN WHEELER FOUNDATION$5,000
HAMILTON HIGH ALUMNI ASSOCIATION$5,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF AMERICA$5,000
GIGI'S PLAYHOUSE$5,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–25, $181k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $15k → 10%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $15k → 10%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%ANDREW PSTEWART CENTER: $10k → 14%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $10k → 10%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $10k → 10%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $10k → 10%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $10k → 10%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $9k → 10%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $8k → 10%CHILDREN'S HOPE INTERNATIONAL LITERACY & DEVELOPMENT (CHILD): $5k → 10%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.
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 15% of Woravka Family Foundation for Children’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 77% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 82%.

Woravka Family Foundation for Childrenlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 7.1% 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 16 repeat orgs$22k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
1

Total granted

$1.1M
$5k

Still filing today

38%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k 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
HealthHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentCrime & LegalHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • CI
    CHILD International
    9× · 2017–2025 · $91k · revenue +194%
  • AP
    ANDREW P STEWART CENTER INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $90k · revenue +50%
  • OF
    ORANGEWOOD FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $80k · revenue +83%

Funded once

  • TR
    THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
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.

1
Warrior Kids Foundation
Health
2
Children's Hospital & Research Center At Oakland

The mission of children's hospital & research center at oakland is to protect and advance the health and well-being of children through clinical care, teaching and research.

Health
3
Bright Spot Network

Provide young cancer survivors who are parents of small children with a safe space for individual and familial healing, recovery and reconnection.

Health
4
Beth Israel Hospital & Children's Hospital Medical Care Corporation

Pediatric healthcare, education & research

—
5
Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston Inc

Boys & girls clubs of boston (bgcb) stands as a transformative force in boston and chelsea, where high expectations unlock greatness. we believe that every young person who walks through our doors carries limitless potential. through our…

Youth Development
6
Wipe Out Kids' Cancer Inc

Wipe out kids cancer offers comfort and hope to kids with cancer through support programs serving the entire family and funds innovative research leading to new discoveries and treatments in the fight against pediatric cancer. "support and…

—
7
Beat Childhood Cancer Foundation Inc

Beat childhood cancer drives childhood cancer research and raises awareness, making a difference in kids' survival today. our vision is to change the story for the next family by finding viable treatments and ultimately, cures for…

Health
8
Austin Wade Foundation

Children battling cancer

Unclassified
9
Targeting Resistance in Cancer Cooperative
Health
10
Children's Cancer Research Fund

Children's cancer research fund fuels transformational research to bring better treatments and cures to children with cancer.

Philanthropy
11
The Children's Home Inc

Provides residential and community services to promote long-term well-being and success for young people and families who experience disruption in their lives.

Human Services
12
The Population Council Inc

We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Orangewood Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Blood Cancer United Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the 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 20 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WAYMAKERS HB YOUTH SHELTER: $195,000 · OtherWAYMAKERS HB YOUTH SHELTERCSP HUNTINGTON BEACH CHILDRENS SHELTER: $165,000 · OtherCSP HUNTINGTON BEACH CHILDRENS SHELTERCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF ORANGE COUNTY(CASA): $80,000 · OtherCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF ORANGE COUNTY(CASA)LAGUNA BEACH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $77,500 · OtherLAGUNA BEACH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONPADUA FRANCISCAN HIGH SCHOOL: $75,000 · OtherPADUA FRANCISCAN HIGH SCHOOLTHERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER OF HB: $50,000 · OtherTHERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER OF HBGIGI'S PLAYHOUSE: $45,000 · OtherGIGI'S PLAYHOUSEHAMILTON HIGH ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $35,000 · OtherOAKVIEW COMUNIDAD: $30,000 · Other+2 more: $22,500 · OtherCHILD International: $91,000 · Human ServicesCHILD Internation…ANDREW P STEWART CENTER INC: $90,000 · Human ServicesANDREW P STEWART …ROBYNES NEST: $55,000 · Youth DevelopmentROBYNES NE…BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $47,500 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIR…ORANGEWOOD FOUNDATION: $80,000 · Crime & LegalBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $10,000 · HealthJessie Rees Foundation: $6,500 · HealthBRYNN WHEELER FOUNDATION: $5,000 · HealthDANA POINT WOMEN'S CLUB INC: $1,500 · Housing & Shelter
Other$775,000Human Services$181,000Youth Development$102,500Crime & Legal$80,000Health$21,500Housing & Shelter$1,500

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 budgetCHILD International: $91,000 over 9y, 6.0% of budgetANDREW P STEWART CENTER INC: $90,000 over 9y, 1.3% of budgetORANGEWOOD FOUNDATION: $80,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetROBYNES NEST: $55,000 over 6y, 1.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $47,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJessie Rees Foundation: $6,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBRYNN WHEELER FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetDANA POINT WOMEN'S CLUB INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.9% 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 CHILD International ↗
  • Who funds ANDREW P STEWART CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds ORANGEWOOD FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ROBYNES NEST ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
  • Who funds Jessie Rees Foundation ↗
  • Who funds BRYNN WHEELER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds DANA POINT WOMEN'S CLUB INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Woravka Family Foundation for Children funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Woravka Family Foundation for Children. 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%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 20 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 Woravka Family Foundation for Children’s filings →

    More from the funding graph