Skip to content
Western Athletic Conference at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$2.9M
Granted FY2026still arriving
5
Grants FY2026still arriving
2
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Education$26M
02FY2026 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2026

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $226k
  • $250k+4 grants · $2.7M
$433,441
Median grant
2
States reached
$7.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY$1,015,781
SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY$828,917
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - ARLINGTON$433,441
TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY$413,229
UTAH TECH UNIVERSITY$225,684
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 (FY17–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its 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: $413k → 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%TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY: $306k → 13%ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $1.0M → 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: $829k → 13%Seattle University: $369k → 9%Chicago State University: $292k → 14%Grand Canyon University: $442k → 11%California State University Bakersfield: $256k → 18%ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $697k → 22%University of Texas - Rio Grande Valley: $279k → 27%New Mexico State University: $476k → 23%Utah Valley University: $372k → 8%SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY: $680k → 13%SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: $353k → 9%Grand Canyon University: $330k → 11%ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $564k → 22%New Mexico State University: $461k → 23%Utah Valley University: $347k → 8%SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY: $535k → 13%Seattle University: $346k → 9%Abilene Christian University: $466k → 22%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
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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
IL
CA
UT
MO
AZ
NM
TX
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$25M · 14 repeat orgs$400k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2026, 10 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
1

Total granted

$25M
$400k

Still filing today

29%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • 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
    4× · 2023–2026 · $1.9M · revenue +74%

Funded once

  • SH
    SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2022 · $400k
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
04the grantee network

5 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

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)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $4,026,464 · OtherABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITYSOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY 01-65: $3,095,743 · OtherSOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY 01-65NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: $2,995,838 · OtherNEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITYUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY: $2,954,272 · OtherUTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITYSEATTLE 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 · OtherTARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY: $943,884 · OtherUTAH TECH UNIVERSITY: $852,461 · Other+1 more: $399,664 · OtherGrand Canyon University: $2,223,118 · EducationGrand Canyon Univer…UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON ALUMNI ASSOCIATION INC: $1,949,007 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS…CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY: $771,702 · EducationCALIFORNIA BAPTIST …
Other$24,109,743Education$4,943,827

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $4,026,464 over 5y, 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
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 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 ↗

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.

National Collegiate A…Folds of Honor Founda…Tulsa Community Found…Columbus FoundationMorgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
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

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 Western Athletic Conference funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Western Athletic Conference. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's 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, 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 16 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Western Athletic Conference’s 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