Skip to content

· Private foundation

Wilson Scholarship Fund

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$14k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$117kHealth$18kYouth Development$3k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$229k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$4,000
LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE$2,000
GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY$2,000
ALMA COLLEGE$1,000
CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY$1,000
TRINE UNIVERSITY$1,000
HOPE COLLEGE$1,000
NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY$1,000
GWINNETT TECHNICAL COLLEGE$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY25–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY: $2k → 8%HOPE COLLEGE: $1k → 10%NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $1k → 11%ALMA COLLEGE: $1k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $4k → 14%LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $2k → 16%CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $1k → 19%GWINNETT TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $1k → 9%TRINE UNIVERSITY: $1k → 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.
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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$120k · 26 repeat orgs$15k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +7% since the first grant, against -11% for those funded once.

26 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 19 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
13

Total granted

$120k
$13k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+7%
-11%

Still filing today

27%
8%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

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

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • UO
    University of Michigan
    5× · 2021–2025 · $17k · revenue +96%
  • Samford University
    3× · 2020–2022 · $5k · revenue +59%
  • TU
    Trine University
    4× · 2022–2025 · $4k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $1k
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
President and Trustees of Bates College

Bates is a college of the liberal arts and sciences, and is a coeducational, nonsectarian, residential college with special commitments to academic rigor, and to assuring in all of its efforts the dignity of each individual, and access to…

Education
2
Walsh University Inc

Walsh university is an independent, coeducational catholic, liberal arts and sciences institution dedicated to educating its students to become leaders in service to others through a values-based education with an international perspective…

Education
3
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
4
Augustana University Association

Inspired by lutheran scholarly tradition and the liberal arts, augustana provides an education of enduring worth that challenges the intellect, fosters integrity and integrates faith with learning and service in a diverse world.

Education
5
LaGrange College

Education - lagrange college challenges the minds and inspires the souls of its students. founded in 1831 and committed to its relationship with the united methodist church and its wesleyan and liberal arts traditions, the college supports…

Education
6
Benedictine University

Benedictine University is an inclusive academic community dedicated to teaching and learning, scholarship and service, truth and justice, as inspired by the Catholic intellectual tradition, the social teaching of the Church, and the…

Education
7
Excelsior University

Excelsior University provides educational opportunity to adult learners with an emphasis on those historically underrepresented in higher education. The University meets students where they are - academically and geographically, offering…

Education
8
Taylor University

The mission of Taylor University is to develop servant-leaders marked with a passion to minister Christ's redemptive love, grace, and truth to a world in need.

Education
9
Boston Architectural College

The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.

—
10
Marquette University

As a Catholic, Jesuit university our mission is to search for truth, discover shareknowledge, foster personal professional excellence, promote a life of faith and developleadership expressed in service to others. See Schedule O.

Education
11
Trinity University

Trinity university is an independent co-educational university whose mission is excellence in the interrelated areas of teaching, research and services.

Education
12
Wabash College

Wabash college is a liberal arts college for men that educates them to think critically, act responsibly, lead effectively, and live humanely.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Samford University; the most unlike its peers is Burr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State. 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

9 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. 9 of the 42 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

University of Michigan: $17,000 · OtherUniversity of MichiganCENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $14,000 · OtherCENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITYGRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY: $9,000 · OtherGRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITYLANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $6,000 · OtherLANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGESAGINAW VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY: $6,000 · OtherSAGINAW VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITYIndividual grant recipient: $4,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $4,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $4,000 · OtherWESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $4,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $4,000 · Other+24 more: $37,000 · Other+24 moreALMA COLLEGE: $8,000 · EducationALMA COLLEGESamford University: $5,000 · EducationSamford UniversityTrine University: $4,000 · EducationTrine UniversityCALVIN UNIVERSITY: $3,000 · EducationCALVIN UNIVERSITYMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $3,000 · EducationMassachusetts Institu…HOPE COLLEGE: $2,000 · EducationHOPE COLLEGENorthwood University: $1,000 · EducationBurr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State: $3,000 · Youth Development
Other$109,000Education$26,000Youth Development$3,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUniversity of Michigan: $17,000 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetALMA COLLEGE: $8,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetSamford University: $5,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTrine University: $4,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBurr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State: $3,000 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetCALVIN UNIVERSITY: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHOPE COLLEGE: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNorthwood University: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 University of Michigan ↗
  • Who funds ALMA COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds Samford University ↗
  • Who funds Trine University ↗
  • Who funds Burr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State ↗
  • Who funds CALVIN UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
  • Who funds HOPE COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds Northwood 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Fred & Florence Dengler Scholarship FundOH13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fred & Florence Dengler Scholarship 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 Wilson Scholarship Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wilson Scholarship Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 26%
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 26% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 42 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 Wilson Scholarship’s filings →

More from the funding graph