· Private foundation
William W and Marilyn a Weil Foundation Charitable Trust
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 81% of WILLIAM W AND MARILYN A WEIL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $6,000 |
| SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS | $2,250 |
| JUDICIAL WATCH | $2,200 |
| GARY SINISE FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| SUMMIT COUNTY | $1,200 |
| METRO CARING | $1,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| ARCHBISHOPS | $1,000 |
| THE CATHOLIC FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| THEATRE SILCO | $700 |
| NORTH TAMA DOLLARS FOR SCHOLARS | $500 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY20–23, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +46% since the first grant, against -28% for the ones you funded once.
16 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 34% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- RIRose-Hulman Institute of Technology4× · 2017–2023 · $12k · revenue +65%
JUDICIAL WATCH INC4× · 2020–2024 · $4k · revenue +16%- MCMETRO CARING4× · 2021–2024 · $4k · revenue +46%
Funded once
- TIThe Independence Fund Incone grant, 2022 · $2k · revenue -28%
- ACARCHBISHOP'S CATHOLIC APPEALone grant, 2022 · $1k
- SJSAINT JOAN OF ARC CATHOLIC CHURCHone grant, 2023 · $1k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
We connect people, ideas, and nonprofits to make good happen. our vision is that all of jeffco is thriving.
Provide exceptional, integrated, patient-centered health care services designed to meet the needs of all patients, particularly those who experience barriers to accessing care, regardless of their ability to pay.
The santa fe community foundation inspires philanthropic generosity, strengthens nonprofits, and fosters positive change to build a more vibrant, healthy, and resilient region. the foundation's vision is a thriving northern new mexico,…
The san diego foundation inspires enduring philanthropy and enables community solutions to improve the quality of life in our region.
To lead, serve and collaborate to mobilize enduring philanthropy for a better arizona.
Seeking to put god's love into action, habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.
To provide meaningful access to high quality, civil legal services in the pursuit of justice for as many low income persons and members of vulnerable populations throughout colorado as possible.
To promote philanthropy to make santa cruz county a better place to live, now and in the future.we bring together people, ideas, and resources to inspire philanthropy and accomplish great things.
Be a catalyst! Ignite our community's passion for nature and science.
To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.
To provide timely, credible and accessible analyses of fiscal and economic issues facing colorado to inform public policy debates and promote economic prosperity
The vermont community foundation helps to build philanthropic resources to sustain healthy and vital vermont communities. the foundation connects and mobilizes people through giving to multiply the impact of philanthropy.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Summit Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Summit County Rescue Group Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 34 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds JUDICIAL WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds METRO CARING ↗
- Who funds GARY SINISE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CATHOLIC CHARITIES & COMMUNITY SERV OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER ↗
- Who funds The Independence Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds SUMMIT COUNTY RESCUE GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds LAKE DILLON FOUNDATION FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS DBA THEATRE SILCO ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN COLORADO ↗
- Who funds THE SUMMIT FOUNDATION ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 William W and Marilyn a Weil Foundation Charitable Trust 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.
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.