· Private foundation
Michel David-Weill 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2022.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2022
- $50k–250k4 grants · $769k
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART | $250,000 |
| ROTHSCHILD FOUNDATION | $239,250 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE LOUVRE | $230,000 |
| AIR TWIGA ANIMAL RESCUE | $200,000 |
| COTTAGE HEALTH | $100,000 |
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 US giving — 54% of grant dollars ($8.0M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 46% that went abroad ($6.7M) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of your 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.
Beyond the US — 46% of all-years giving ($6.7M)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +28% since the first grant, against +15% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2022, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).
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 FY2022, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $569k 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
- MMMETROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART4× · 2019–2022 · $1.5M · revenue +76%
- UJUNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC3× · 2017–2019 · $600k · revenue +39%
- TFThe French-American Foundation5× · 2017–2021 · $500k · revenue +28%
Funded once
- FDFOUNDATION DU CHATEAU DE HAUTEFORTone grant, 2020 · $4.0M
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $1.1M
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $582k
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 Foundation for Art and Preservation in Embassies (FAPE) is dedicated to enhancing the United States' image abroad through American Art. Founded as a public-private, non-partisan partnership in 1986, FAPE works with the U.S. Department…
Born out of the greatest appreciation for these outstanding collections, American Friends is a U.S. 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to fostering philanthropic support for the conservation, dissemination, and enjoyment of the…
The mission of the american friends of the centre pompidou is to acquire and to encourage gifts of art and design of the americas for gift or loan to the permanent collections of the centre pompidou musee national d'art moderne (centre…
To encourage appreciation and understanding of the art of portraiture through support of the operations and activities of the national portrait gallery in london and its collaboration with american arts and academic institutions.
The American Friends of the English Heritage was formed with the purpose of promoting the United Kingdom-Based charity English Heritage (ENGLISH-HERRITAGE.ORG.UK) in the United States through Educational activities and supporing English…
Founded in 1995, the american friends of the shanghai museum is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to raise awareness and financial support for the shanghai museum, continuing a distinguished history of patron support for…
The corporation is organized and operates exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
To promote cultural exchanges and educational activities between Ireland and the United States and to aid in the exhibition and performance of a broad range of arts.
The american federation of arts initiates and organizes a national and international program of art exhibitions, publications, and educational activities to benefit the museum community and enrich the public's experience and understanding…
To identify, promote and expand academic, cultural and scientific relationships linking france and the united states. we do this through artistic, educational and other cultural presentations, events, trips and perhaps most importantly by…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of the Louvre Inc and the most unlike its peers is Metropolitan Museum of Art. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 30 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 Air Twiga Animal Rescue Inc ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART ↗
- Who funds UNITED JEWISH APPEAL-FEDERATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds The French-American Foundation ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE MUSEES DES ARTS DECORATIFS INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE LOUVRE INC ↗
- Who funds MYRIAD USA INC ↗
- Who funds Cottage Health ↗
- Who funds FRENCH INSTITUTE - ALLIANCE FRANCAISE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF SAINT GERMAIN DES PRES INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF COVENT GARDEN THE ROYAL BALLET INC ↗
- Who funds THE WALLACE COLLECTION IN AMERICA INC ↗
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 Annenberg Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 Michel David-Weill Foundation 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Michel David-Weill Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Michel David-Weill Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.