Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Bates and Margaret Chappell 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.

$25k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
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.

Arts & Culture$51kEnvironment$2kEducation$2kHuman Services$2kAnimals$1kHealth$1kInternational$1kPublic Benefit$1k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$287k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MAYMONT FOUNDATION$25,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SHELTERING ARMS: $1k → 5%JAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION: $1k → 9%RWC FOUNDATION: $2k → 14%VA LEAGUE: $1k → 22%JAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION: $1k → 9%FOUNDATION FOR HISTORIC CHRIST CHURCH: $500 → 14%MAYMONT FOUNDATION: $25k → 22%ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $1k → 14%MAYMONT FOUNDATION: $25k → 22%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
Historic Virginia Land Conservancy

Promoting for the benefit of the general public, the preservation, protection and enjoyment of our natural resources, principally in the lower james, york, rappahannock and chowan rivers and surrounding watersheds.

Environment
2
Rivanna Conservation Alliance

Working with the community to conserve the rivanna river and its watershed through water quality monitoring, education, restoration, and stewardship.

Environment
3
Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center Foundation Inc

To connect people to the marine environment, inspiring a more sustainable future. we aspire to be a driver in conservation, education, tourism, and sustainability, leading the charge to save wildlife and their ecosystems.

—
4
Virginia Association of Museums

The virginia association of museums is a statewide network serving the museum community. the association's mission statement is "the virginia association of museums helps our museum community succeed".

Arts & Culture
5
Vcu Investment Management Company

To provide investment and investment management and related services to the rector and the board of visitors of virginia commonwealth university (vcu), and/or to the private and independent foundations and other entities affiliated with…

Education
6
Virginia Living Museum Inc

The museum connects people to nature by delivering educational classes, programs, exhibits, events and demonstrations. staff and volunteers engage learners of all ages on a 23 acre campus setting. indoor and outdoor learning opportunities…

Arts & Culture
7
Virginia Museum of Natural History Foundation

The Foundation implements programs and projects which support the goals of the Museum. The responsibilities include solicitation, receipt and disbursements

—
8
Wild Virginia Incorporated

Protecting and connecting virginia's wild places.

Environment
9
Virginia Agribusiness Council

Represent the agriculture, forestry, and agribusiness community in virginia.

—
10
Alliance for the Shenandoah Valley

Alliance for the shenandoah valley informs and engages people to protect the natural resources, cultural heritages, and rural character of our region.

Community Improvement
11
University of Virginia Investment Management Company

The university of virginia investment management company (uvimco) is organized to invest funds on behalf of the rector and visitors of the university of virginia (the university or uva) and university-associated organizations (uaos).

Education
12
West Virginia Rivers Coalition Inc

To promote safe and healthy waters for all in west virginia, primarily through water policy advocacy. the organization provides public education and informational resources.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sheltering Arms Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Water Missions International. 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

7 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. 7 of the 9 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MAYMONT FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Arts & CultureMAYMONT FOUNDATION+1 more: $500 · Arts & CultureRWC FOUNDATION: $2,000 · OtherVA LEAGUE: $1,000 · OtherJAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION: $2,000 · EnvironmentVIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE FDN: $2,000 · EducationTHE ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE OF THE NORTHERN NECK INC: $1,000 · AnimalsWATER MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL: $1,000 · InternationalSHELTERING ARMS CORPORATION: $1,000 · Health
Arts & Culture$50,500Other$3,000Environment$2,000Education$2,000Animals$1,000International$1,000Health$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMAYMONT FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetJAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetVIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE FDN: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE OF THE NORTHERN NECK INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWATER MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFoundation for Historic Christ Church Inc: $500 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Bates and Margaret Chappell Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Bates and Margaret Chappell 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Bates and Margaret Chappell Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Bates and Margaret Chappell 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.

    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 9 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 Bates and Margaret Chappell’s filings →

    More from the funding graph