Skip to content

· Private foundation

Ab Inbev Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.9M
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.0M
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, FY2019 to 2025.

International$3.0MFood & Nutrition$798kEducation$285kHealth$147kPublic Safety & Disaster$50k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $150k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.8M
$797,536
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY INC$1,000,000
WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME$797,536
KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN$100,000
FUNDACION CERVECERIA HONDURENA PARA EL AMBIENTE$50,000
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.

US giving: 54% of grant dollars ($2.3M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 46% that went abroad ($1.9M) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY INC: $1.0M → 11%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $180k → 8%GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $105k → 14%INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES: $1.0M → 12%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $42k → 15%ROTAIRAN ACTION GROUP-BELGIUM: $5k → 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.

Beyond the US: 46% of all-years giving ($1.9M)

4 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
United Kingdom$1.0M · 1 grant
Italy$798k · 1 grant
Belgium$100k · 1 grant
Honduras$50k · 1 grant
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its field
04the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 10 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
2/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES: $1,000,000 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISESFOOD FOR THE HUNGRY INC: $1,000,000 · InternationalFOOD FOR THE HUNGRY INCWATERAID LIMITED: $1,000,000 · OtherWATERAID LIMITEDWORLD FOOD PROGRAMME: $797,536 · OtherWORLD FOOD PROGRAMMEKATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN: $100,000 · Other+3 more: $96,995 · OtherMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $180,000 · EducationGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $105,000 · Education
International$2,000,000Other$1,994,531Education$285,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES: $1,000,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetFOOD FOR THE HUNGRY INC: $1,000,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $180,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $105,000 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 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES ↗
  • Who funds FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY INC ↗
  • Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
  • Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Ab Inbev Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ab Inbev Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 35%
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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 10 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 Ab Inbev’s filings →

More from the funding graph