Skip to content
The Fred C and Dolores R Williams Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Fred C and Dolores R Williams 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.

$143k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$13k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$143kYouth Development$92kHousing & Shelter$85kAnimals$80kReligion$70kEducation$67kFood & Nutrition$67kRecreation & Sports$60kOther$0
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k12 grants · $123k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WELLNESS HOUSE$12,846
LOVE INC$10,000
PEGASUS PROJECT FOUNDATION$10,000
TOPPENISH FOOD CHEST$10,000
NOAH'S ARK HOMELESS SHELTER$10,000
CENTRAL WASHINGTON LEGAL AID$10,000
PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE - MEALS ON WHEELS$10,000
YAKIMA VALLEY PET RESCUE$10,000
CAMP HOPE$10,000
UNION GOSPEL MISSION$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
YAKIMA HUMANE SOCIETY$10,000
PARKER YOUTH & SPORTS FOUNDATION$5,000
HEARTLINKS$5,000
TILLAMOOK SCHOOL DISTRICT$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 (FY19–25, $105k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%VISION INDEPENDENCE CENTER: $5k → 17%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE - MEALS ON WHEELS: $10k → 17%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE - MEALS ON WHEELS: $5k → 17%HEARTLINKS: $5k → 17%PEGASUS PROJECT FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%PEGASUS PROJECT FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%PEGASUS PROJECT FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%PEGASUS PROJECT FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%CHILDRENS WISHES AND DREAMS: $10k → 17%CHILDRENS WISHES AND DREAMS: $10k → 17%CHILDRENS WISHES AND DREAMS: $10k → 17%CHILDRENS WISHES AND DREAMS: $5k → 17%CHILDRENS WISHES AND DREAMS: $5k → 17%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$692k · 24 repeat orgs$111k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against -15% for those funded once.

24 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
22

Total granted

$692k
$77k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
-15%

Still filing today

50%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $34k 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
Human ServicesFood & NutritionAnimalsHousing & ShelterHealthCrime & LegalOther
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

  • YH
    YAKIMA HUMANE SOCIETY
    8× · 2018–2025 · $63k · revenue +225%
  • CW
    Childrens Wishes & Dreams
    5× · 2019–2023 · $40k · revenue +46%
  • LI
    Love in the Name of Christ of Mason County
    6× · 2020–2025 · $35k · revenue +81%

Funded once

  • SO
    SUNRISE OUTREACH CENTER OF YAKIMA
    one grant, 2020 · $11k · revenue -15%
  • CK
    CAMP KESEM
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • VF
    Vision For Independence Center
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +12%
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
Nourish Pierce County

To provide food to individuals in need with compassion, dignity and respect. No one needing assistance is turned away.

—
2
West Seattle Food Bank

West Seattle Food Bank strengthens the community through the power of neighbors helping neighbors, working to ensure all in our community have access to the essential necessities of living.

Food & Nutrition
3
Washington Health Outreach

Washington health outreach improves community health by providing free and low cost veterinary, health, and social services for our neighbors.

Animals
4
Nooksack Valley Food Bank Association

Our mission is to provide a variety of food products to families and individuals who are in need. We are open one day a week.

Food & Nutrition
5
Lake Chelan Food Bank

The mission of Lake Chelan Food Bank is to treat each person we serve with dignity and respect and to provide balanced and varied options that give each person the liberty to meet the specific food needs for themsevles and/or their family.

Food & Nutrition
6
Port Angeles Food Bank

Nourishing our community. the port angeles food bank is the main food bank in clallam county, providing food to 13 other area pantries and meal programs as well as providing food to over 5,000 individuals per month.

Food & Nutrition
7
Snohomish Community Food Bank

To provide food and services in a caring and dignified manner to neighbors in need

—
8
People for Animal Care and Kindness

Provide food, supplies, veterinary services & toys to Pierce & King counties food banks, shelters & to low income and homeless individuals.

Animals
9
Puyallup Food Bank

We are passionate about meeting the urgent needs of our neighbors and partnering to assist them, believing food is the first step on their journey to a more hopeful future!

Human Services
10
New Hope Ranch
—
11
Okanogan Regional Humane

To significantly reduce the overpopulation of cats and dogs in the Okanogan Region by offering affordable/free spay & neuter programs, emergency vet care and partner with no kill rescues.

Animals
12
Whiskers in Need

To rescue abandoned cats rehab them in foster care. Provide vet care + food and ultimately get them adopted into good homes. We were able to adopt out 188 cats in 2025.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is People for People; the most unlike its peers is Childrens Wishes & Dreams. 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

20 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. 20 of the 51 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
11/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CAMP HOPE: $67,109 · OtherCAMP HOPEUNION GOSPEL MISSION: $65,000 · OtherUNION GOSPEL MISSIONIndividual grant recipient: $61,359 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTILLAMOOK HIGH SCHOOL: $55,000 · OtherTILLAMOOK HIGH SCHOOLWellness House: $37,846 · OtherWellness HouseNORTHWEST HARVEST EMM: $25,000 · OtherNOAH'S ARK HOMELESS SHELTER: $20,000 · Other+32 more: $168,000 · Other+32 morePEGASUS PROJECT FOUNDATION: $40,000 · Human ServicesPEGASUS PROJEC…Childrens Wishes & Dreams: $40,000 · Human ServicesChildrens Wish…PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $15,000 · Human ServicesPEOPLE FOR PEO…Vision For Independence Center: $5,000 · Human ServicesHEARTLINKS: $5,000 · Human ServicesYAKIMA HUMANE SOCIETY: $63,000 · AnimalsYAKIMA HUMA…Yakima Valley Pet Rescue and Adoption Center: $15,000 · AnimalsYakima Vall…ROD'S HOUSE: $30,000 · Housing & ShelterSUNRISE OUTREACH CENTER OF YAKIMA: $11,000 · Housing & ShelterLove in the Name of Christ of Mason County: $35,000 · ReligionYAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY SERVICES: $30,000 · Crime & LegalWellness Place: $15,000 · Health
Other$499,314Human Services$105,000Animals$78,000Housing & Shelter$41,000Religion$35,000Crime & Legal$30,000Health$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYAKIMA HUMANE SOCIETY: $63,000 over 8y, 0.5% of budgetPEGASUS PROJECT FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 4y, 1.9% of budgetChildrens Wishes & Dreams: $40,000 over 5y, 13% of budgetWellness House: $37,846 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetLove in the Name of Christ of Mason County: $35,000 over 6y, 6.5% of budgetYAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY SERVICES: $30,000 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetROD'S HOUSE: $30,000 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetNORTHWEST HARVEST EMM: $25,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWellness Place: $15,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetPEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYakima Valley Pet Rescue and Adoption Center: $15,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetSUNRISE OUTREACH CENTER OF YAKIMA: $11,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetVision For Independence Center: $5,000 over 1y, 8.6% of budgetLIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetYakima Rotary Food Bank: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED PAWS OF TILLAMOOK: $2,000 over 2y, 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 YAKIMA HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds PEGASUS PROJECT FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Childrens Wishes & Dreams ↗
  • Who funds Wellness House ↗
  • Who funds Love in the Name of Christ of Mason County ↗
  • Who funds YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds ROD'S HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWEST HARVEST EMM ↗
  • Who funds Wellness Place ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE ↗
  • Who funds Yakima Valley Pet Rescue and Adoption Center ↗
  • Who funds SUNRISE OUTREACH CENTER OF YAKIMA ↗
  • Who funds Vision For Independence Center ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF THE BLIND ↗
  • Who funds Parker Youth and Sports Foundation ↗
  • Who funds LIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds HEARTLINKS ↗
  • Who funds HIGHLAND FOOD BANK ↗

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.

Yakima Valley Communi…United Way of Central…Northwest Harvest EmmLamb Weston Charitabl…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Yakima Valley Community FoundationWA22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Yakima Valley Community Foundation · United Way of Central Washington · Northwest Harvest Emm · Lamb Weston Charitable Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 The Fred C and Dolores R Williams Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Fred C and Dolores R Williams Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%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
    1get no government money at all
    7report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Fred C and Dolores R Williams Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Fred C and Dolores R Williams 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 51 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 Fred C and Dolores R Williams’ 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