Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Western Athletic Conference

The conference is committed to providing student-athletes an exemplary university experience - both on and off the field of play.

$3.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1.3M
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Education$26M
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$662,120
Median grant
2
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY$1,284,351
SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY$1,052,168
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - ARLINGTON$662,120
UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY$401,782
TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY$305,660
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 76% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: $583k → 11%CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY: $539k → 11%California State University Bakersfield: $267k → 18%TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY: $306k → 13%Sam Houston State University: $400k → 20%ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $1.3M → 22%Stephen F Austin State University: $498k → 23%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - RIO GRANDE VA: $435k → 27%New Mexico State University: $714k → 23%University of Missouri - Kansas City: $332k → 15%UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY: $628k → 8%UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY: $402k → 10%SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY: $1.1M → 13%Seattle University: $379k → 9%Chicago State University: $314k → 14%Grand Canyon University: $486k → 11%California State University Bakersfield: $263k → 18%ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $697k → 22%STEPHEN F AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY: $449k → 23%University of Texas - Rio Grande Valley: $283k → 27%New Mexico State University: $480k → 23%University of Missouri - Kansas City: $321k → 15%UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY: $478k → 8%SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY: $680k → 13%Seattle University: $369k → 9%Chicago State University: $292k → 14%Grand Canyon University: $442k → 11%California State University Bakersfield: $256k → 18%ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $564k → 22%University of Texas - Rio Grande Valley: $279k → 27%New Mexico State University: $476k → 23%Utah Valley University: $372k → 8%SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY: $535k → 13%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $353k → 9%Chicago State University: $256k → 14%Grand Canyon University: $330k → 11%California State University Bakersfield: $252k → 18%Abilene Christian University: $466k → 22%University of Texas - Rio Grande Valley: $254k → 27%New Mexico State University: $461k → 23%Utah Valley University: $347k → 8%Seattle University: $346k → 9%New Mexico State University: $437k → 23%Utah Valley University: $342k → 8%Seattle University: $261k → 9%New Mexico State University: $429k → 23%Utah Valley University: $322k → 8%Seattle University: $259k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

WA
IL
CA
UT
MO
AZ
NM
TX

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$23M · 14 repeat orgs$400k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
1

Total granted

$23M
$400k

Still filing today

29%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

  • SU
    SEATTLE UNIVERSITY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $2.3M · revenue +62%
  • GC
    Grand Canyon University
    7× · 2018–2024 · $2.2M · revenue +18%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON ALUMNI ASSOCIATION INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +74%

Funded once

  • SH
    SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2022 · $400k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field
04the grantee network

5 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 5 of the 16 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY — $3,010,683 · OtherABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITYNEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY — $2,995,838 · OtherNEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITYUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY — $2,954,272 · OtherUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITYSOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY 01-65 — $2,266,826 · OtherSOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY 01-65SEATTLE UNIVERSITY — $2,265,775 · OtherSEATTLE UNIVERSITYTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY — $2,024,468 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEYChicago State University — $1,430,450 · OtherChicago State UniversityCURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI — $1,059,450 · OtherCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD — $1,037,422 · OtherSTEPHEN F AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY — $1,023,852 · Other+3 more — $1,557,096 · Other+3 moreGrand Canyon University — $2,223,118 · EducationGrand Canyon Univer…UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON ALUMNI ASSOCIATION INC — $1,515,566 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS…CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY — $771,702 · EducationCALIFORNIA BAPTIST …
Other$21,626,132Education$4,510,386

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY — $3,010,683 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetSEATTLE UNIVERSITY — $2,265,775 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetGrand Canyon University — $2,223,118 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY — $771,702 over 2y, 0.1% of budget
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 ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
  • Who funds SEATTLE UNIVERSITY
  • Who funds Grand Canyon University
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON ALUMNI ASSOCIATION INC
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY

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.

National Collegiate Athletic AssociationIN26× affinity10 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Collegiate Athletic Association · Folds of Honor Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · Columbus Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Western Athletic Conference 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 16 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph