Skip to content
William & Mary Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

William & Mary Foundation

The William & Mary Foundation advances the university's highest aspirations by securing private support, guiding a multi-asset investment portfolio, and offering strategic leadership.

$53M
Granted FY2025still arriving
28
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$14M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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$250MRecreation & Sports$53MArts & Culture$24MEnvironment$6.0MHealth$3.1MHousing & Shelter$2.4MAnimals$1.4MScience & Tech$1.4MOther$0
02FY2025 · 28 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $57k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $1.3M
  • $250k+18 grants · $51M
$893,294
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.5B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WILLIAM & MARY$13,563,449
WILLIAM & MARY$8,544,219
WILLIAM & MARY$5,823,151
WILLIAM & MARY$5,763,782
WILLIAM & MARY$3,633,011
WILLIAM & MARY$2,294,564
WILLIAM & MARY$1,949,461
WILLIAM & MARY$1,852,283
WILLIAM & MARY$1,580,534
WILLIAM & MARY$1,198,484
WILLIAM & MARY$1,054,450
WILLIAM & MARY$1,000,000
WILLIAM & MARY$944,531
WILLIAM & MARY$893,294
WILLIAM & MARY$416,566
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%CATHOLIC CAMPUS MINISTRY AT THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $62k → 7%CATHOLIC CAMPUS MINISTRY AT THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY (LINE 6 PART II): $49k → 7%CATHOLIC CAMPUS MINISTRY AT THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $41k → 7%MARSHALL WYTHE SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATION: $7k → 7%MARSHALL-WYTHE SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATION (LINE 5 PART II): $6k → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $8.9M → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $8.3M → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $6.3M → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $4.9M → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $4.5M → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $3.0M → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $1.4M → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $1.0M → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $387k → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $225k → 7%THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY: $203k → 7%MURRAY 1693 SCHOLARS FOUNDATION: $101k → 7%MARSHALL-WYTHE SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATION: $7k → 7%MARSHALL-WYTHE SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDATION: $5k → 7%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$342M · 9 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
0

Total granted

$342M
$0

Still filing today

78%
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
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

  • WM
    William & Mary Real Estate Foundation
    4× · 2019–2025 · $2.3M · revenue +9% · 33% of their budget
  • TW
    THE WILLIAM & MARY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.1M · revenue +114%
  • M1
    Murray 1693 Scholars Foundation
    9× · 2017–2025 · $739k · revenue +36%

Funded once

    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

    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.

    2
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    1
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    7/7
    Grantees still filing
    4/7
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    WILLIAM & MARY: $336,362,521 · OtherWILLIAM & MARY+5 more: $2,912,878 · OtherTHE WILLIAM & MARY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $2,077,776 · EducationMurray 1693 Scholars Foundation: $739,143 · Education+1 more: $23,901 · Education
    Other$339,275,399Education$2,840,820

    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 budgetWilliam & Mary Real Estate Foundation: $2,298,120 over 4y, 33% of budgetTHE WILLIAM & MARY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $2,077,776 over 9y, 17% of budgetMurray 1693 Scholars Foundation: $739,143 over 9y, 20% of budgetWILLIAM & MARY ATHLETIC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $281,274 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetTHE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION INC: $109,657 over 2y, 29% of budgetOMOHUNDRO INSTITUTE OF EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY & CULTURE: $71,486 over 7y, 1.0% of budgetWILLIAM & MARY LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $23,901 over 4y, 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 William & Mary Real Estate Foundation ↗
    • Who funds THE WILLIAM & MARY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION ↗
    • Who funds Murray 1693 Scholars Foundation ↗
    • Who funds WILLIAM & MARY ATHLETIC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
    • Who funds THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION INC ↗
    • Who funds OMOHUNDRO INSTITUTE OF EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY & CULTURE ↗
    • Who funds WILLIAM & MARY LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION ↗

    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.

    Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
    Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust IncIN9.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 William & Mary Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from William & Mary Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

    2025
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
      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 William & Mary Foundation?

      Find your warmest path to William & Mary 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 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 William & Mary’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