W&M Foundation

Legal name: William & Mary Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
540734117
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Williamsburg, VA, USA
Phone
7572211906
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$191,186,125
Expenses
$67,120,736
Assets
$1,455,364,130
Liabilities
$37,808,492

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

44 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIE S LEACH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MATTHEW T LAMBERT (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • F BRIAN HIESTAND (CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, 1693 PARTNERS FUND): $734,772 total reported compensation
  • CATHERINE MOUNTJOY (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 1693 PARTNERS FUND): $477,448 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW T LAMBERT (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $369,708 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

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

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation provides funding to support the salaries of faculty, administrative staff, and other personnel at william & mary. It also supplies general operating support to advance the university's academic mission, strategic priorities, and overall institutional excellence. Additional details can be found in part ix and schedule i.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.3%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 64.9%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.68; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 54.3% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $57.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $735K · 44 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 33 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 35 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.