Skip to content
Ab Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Ab Foundation

The AB FOUNDATION's mission is to compare and contrast progressive and conservative solutions to america's public policy concerns and to educate the american people and the nation's leaders on the results of that research.

$58M
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$27M
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 2024.

Public Benefit$51MArts & Culture$27MEducation$4.5MCivil Rights$4.4MPhilanthropy$575kCrime & Legal$170kEmployment$150kYouth Development$100kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $270k
  • $250k+8 grants · $58M
$500,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AB PAC$26,550,000
AMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIA$23,500,000
CHOOSE CHICAGO FOUNDATION$4,000,000
AMERICA VOTES ACTION FUND$2,000,000
CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S KIDS AND FAMILIES$500,000
VOTERS PROJECT$450,000
PROJECT 218$400,000
CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION$375,000
CELEBRATE NEW JERSEY NOW INC$170,000
BUIDLING THE FUTURE FOUNDATION$100,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY18–22, $800k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 63% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ATLANTA: $300k → 9%NARAL PRO CHOICE AMERICA: $500k → 14%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
NY
MA
WY
PA
NJ
CA
VA
AZ
KS
TN
DC
GA
FL
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.

45%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$40M · 11 repeat orgs$49M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +194% since the first grant, against -7% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
29

Total granted

$40M
$17M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+194%
-7%

Still filing today

45%
59%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31M went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsEnvironmentHuman ServicesArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalOther
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

  • TA
    THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION
    3× · 2019–2021 · $730k · revenue ×44
  • SF
    Soul Food Community Development Corporation Inc
    2× · 2021–2022 · $100k · revenue +194%
  • V
    VOTERIDERS
    2× · 2021–2022 · $100k · revenue +429%

Funded once

  • AF
    Americans for Strength and Freedom
    one grant, 2020 · $4.5M · 61% of their budget
  • BT
    BRIDGE TO DEMOCRACY
    one grant, 2022 · $2.6M
  • UW
    United We Succeed
    one grant, 2022 · $1.9M · revenue -44% · 85% of their budget
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
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
2
American Policy Coalition

With a commitment to free market principles, APC focuses on educating the public about conservative fiscal policies that foster job growth, a stronger economy, and increased opportunity for all Americans.

Public Benefit
3
All Americans Vote

All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!

Civil Rights
4
American Voice

American Voice's mission is to create a more prosperous, fair and free

—
5
A Public Voice Inc

The organization's mission is to promote the common good and general welfare by supporting direct democracy efforts, which give the public a direct voice in the operation of state and local government through the approval or defeat of…

Public Benefit
6
Stand True America

The purpose of the organization is to advocate for the collective interests of American citizens and defend the nation against enemies and critics of the United States.

—
7
Defend Us Inc

The organization works to defend, protect, and advance bedrock American values.

—
8
Team Democracy Action

Team Democracy Action (TDA) promotes social welfare by bringing together Americans of all political perspectives around our shared commitment to the core principles of our constitutional democracy.

—
9
Guarantee Our Votes Project

Protect voting rights in the united states for all citizens and expand voting rights to citizens who have been historically disenfranchised or under-represented in the electoral process.

Civil Rights
10
Citizen Voters Inc

To educate citizens on the societal benefits of sound economic, regulatory and legal policies.

—
11
Organize for Justice

Organize for justice develops diverse campaign leadership by passing on innovations and relationships from one generation of organizers to the next. the organization strives to create public support on issues affecting working americans.

—
12
Advance American Democracy Inc

To protect democracy by advocating for policies to strenghten democracy, educating the public about threats to our democracy, and highlighting the unpopularity of federal policies that places money and power over the rights and freedom of…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Freedom for All; the most unlike its peers is Americans for Strength and Freedom. 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

35 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. 35 of the 49 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.

14
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/35
Grantees still filing
10/35
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AB PAC: $34,112,500 · OtherAB PACAmericans for Strength and Freedom: $4,500,000 · OtherAmericans for Strength and FreedomTRUE BLUE MEDIA LLC: $2,750,201 · OtherBRIDGE TO DEMOCRACY: $2,580,000 · OtherAMERICA VOTES ACTION FUND: $2,000,000 · Other+32 more: $13,197,100 · Other+32 moreAMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIA: $23,500,000 · Arts & CultureAMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIACHOOSE CHICAGO FOUNDATION: $4,000,000 · Community ImprovementREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $500,000 · Human ServicesASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ATLANTA INC: $300,000 · Human ServicesCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $375,000 · Civil RightsCOUNTERACT FOUNDATION: $100,000 · Civil RightsONE ARIZONA: $100,000 · Civil RightsVOTERIDERS: $100,000 · Civil RightsPHILADELPHIA LAWYERS FOR SOCIAL EQUITY: $170,000 · Crime & LegalSoul Food Community Development Corporation Inc: $100,000 · Housing & ShelterCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA: $55,400 · EnvironmentSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $15,000 · Environment
Other$59,139,801Arts & Culture$23,500,000Community Improvement$4,000,000Human Services$800,000Civil Rights$675,000Crime & Legal$170,000Housing & Shelter$100,000Environment$70,400

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIA: $23,500,000 over 1y, 66% of budgetAmericans for Strength and Freedom: $4,500,000 over 1y, 61% of budgetCHOOSE CHICAGO FOUNDATION: $4,000,000 over 1y, 43% of budgetUnited We Succeed: $1,900,000 over 1y, 85% of budgetPreserve American Ideals: $1,000,000 over 1y, 28% of budgetAMERICAN CENTER: $852,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetTHE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION: $730,000 over 3y, 24% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL: $500,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetStory Network Foundation: $500,000 over 1y, 6.9% of budgetProtecting Liberty Justice and Freedom: $469,000 over 1y, 80% of budgetThe Voters Project A NJ Nonprofit Corporation: $450,000 over 1y, 71% of budgetCounterAct Fund: $400,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $375,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetTHE FRANKLIN FORUM: $351,600 over 2y, 89% of budgetTogether Action Fund: $330,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ATLANTA INC: $300,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budget1K Women Strong Inc: $300,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetCELEBRATE NEW JERSEY NOW INC: $170,000 over 1y, 77% of budgetPHILADELPHIA LAWYERS FOR SOCIAL EQUITY: $170,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetPreserve American Values: $115,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetCOUNTERACT FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetBUILDING THE FUTURE FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetSoul Food Community Development Corporation Inc: $100,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetONE ARIZONA: $100,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetVOTERIDERS: $100,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetMEDIA MATTERS ACTION NETWORK: $90,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetVETSFORWARD CIVIC ACTION: $80,000 over 2y, 29% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $75,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOPPORTUNITY FOR ALL ACTION FUND: $65,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA: $55,400 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetRURAL AMERICA FUND: $15,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $15,000 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.

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.

Sixteen Thirty FundWay to Win Action Fun…America VotesEducation Reform Now …Tides Foundation
Sixteen Thirty FundDC18.6× affinity7 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · America Votes · Education Reform Now Advocacy Inc · Tides 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 Ab Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ab Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 40%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get 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 · 0–75%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 49 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ab’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