Skip to content
Abahac Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Abahac Inc

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.

$608k
Granted FY2025still arriving
21
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$48k
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 2025.

Environment$2.4MAnimals$175kEducation$115kFood & Nutrition$76kHuman Services$52kArts & Culture$48kYouth Development$3k
02FY2025 · 21 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$25,340
Median grant
4
States reached
$37M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ALABAMA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL$47,680
LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE$45,000
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER$44,340
ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE$41,340
FRESHWATER LAND TRUST$37,340
TENNESSEE RIVERKEEPER$36,340
BLACK WARRIOR RIVERKEEPER$32,340
COOSA RIVERKEEPER$25,340
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST$25,340
LITERACY COUNCIL OF CENTRAL ALABAMA$25,340
MOBILE BAY KEEPER$25,340
CAHABA RIVER SOCIETY$24,340
RIVER NETWORK$24,340
CAHABA RIVERKEEPER$24,340
ALABAMA WILDLIFE FEDERATION$24,340
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 82% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $25k → 14%COOSA RIVERKEEPER: $25k → 7%ALABAMA WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $24k → 12%BLACK WARRIOR RIVERKEEPER: $32k → 16%MOBILE BAY KEEPER: $25k → 19%CHOCTAWATCHEE RIVERKEEPER: $20k → 27%NASHVILLE ZOO HELLBENDER CONSERVATION: $21k → 14%SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $40k → 8%NATURE CONSERVANCY OF ALABAMA: $22k → 16%LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE: $45k → 14%SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $33k → 8%Black Warrior Riverkeeper: $22k → 16%SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $31k → 8%BLACK WARRIOR RIVERKEEPER: $20k → 16%Land Trust for Tennessee: $42k → 14%SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $30k → 8%PET COMMUNITY CENTER: $20k → 14%SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $30k → 8%SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $30k → 8%GLOBAL EDUCATION CENTER: $20k → 14%CAHABA RIVER SOCIETY: $24k → 16%SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $44k → 14%LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $41k → 14%LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $39k → 14%LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $37k → 14%LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $37k → 14%LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $35k → 14%LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $35k → 14%LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $35k → 14%Southern Environmental Law Center: $34k → 14%SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER: $30k → 16%FRESHWATER LAND TRUST: $20k → 16%FRESHWATER LAND TRUST: $20k → 16%ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE: $41k → 16%Alabama Rivers Alliance: $31k → 16%ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE: $30k → 16%ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE: $28k → 16%ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE: $27k → 16%ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE: $27k → 16%FRESHWATER LAND TRUST: $26k → 16%LITERACY COUNCIL OF CENTRAL ALABAMA: $25k → 16%ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE: $25k → 16%ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE: $25k → 16%ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE: $25k → 16%FRESHWATER LAND TRUST: $25k → 16%FRESHWATER LAND TRUST: $24k → 16%FRESHWATER LAND TRUST: $24k → 16%CAHABA RIVERKEEPER: $24k → 16%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.8M · 25 repeat orgs$62k to everyone else

25 repeat relationships: 20 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
4

Total granted

$2.8M
$42k

Still filing today

68%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationAnimalsCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionOther
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

  • TL
    THE LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $346k · revenue +36%
  • SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $283k · revenue +55%
  • AR
    Alabama Rivers Alliance Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $259k · revenue +66%

Funded once

  • SE
    Southern Environmental Center
    one grant, 2024 · $17k
  • NC
    Nature Conservancy in Alabama
    one grant, 2024 · $12k
  • BS
    BSC SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
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
Rivanna Conservation Alliance

Working with the community to conserve the rivanna river and its watershed through water quality monitoring, education, restoration, and stewardship.

Environment
2
Altamaha Riverkeeper Inc

To Protect and restore the habitat, water quality and flow of the Altamaha River and its watershed tributaries.

Environment
3
Alabama Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils

Coordinate rc&d activity in alabama

Environment
4
American River Conservancy

To conduct land conservation, stewardship and education in the upper american river and upper cosumnes river watersheds

Environment
5
The Vermont River Conservancy Inc

Protect land along rivers, lakes and wetlands of vt; protect public access, wildlife habitat, scenic natural beauty, and ecological integrity.

Human Services
6
River Action Inc

River action strives to foster the environmental, economic, and cultural vitality of the mississippi river and its river front in the quad city region.

—
7
Alabama Association of Conservation Districts Inc

The alabama association of conservation districts (aacd) is the unified voice of alabama's 67 conservation districts. organized as a 501(c)3, aacd works in cooperation with the alabama soil & water conservation committee, federal, state,…

Environment
8
Harpeth Conservancy

To restore and protect clean water and healthy ecosystems for rivers in tennessee by employing scientific expertise and collaborative relationships to develop, promote, and support broad community stewardship and action.

Environment
9
South Alabama Land Trust Inc

The South Alabama Land Trust protects land and promotes environmental education in coastal Alabama so current and future residents can enjoy clean water and the seafood, wildlife, and outdoor recreation that define our area.

Environment
10
Central Savannah River Land Trust Inc

To protect environmentally sensitive land throughout the central savannah river basin through the use of permnanent conservation easements and land acquisitions. also to educate the public on conservation related topics.

Environment
11
Tennessee Clean Water Network

To identify, prevent, and remedy water pollution statewide through a network of allies and resources.

—
12
Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Inc

See schedule o - 01. general explanation attachment

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Black Warrior Riverkeeper Inc; the most unlike its peers is American Farmland Trust. 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

17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 30 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
14/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $346,000 · EnvironmentTHE LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INCAlabama Rivers Alliance Inc: $259,340 · EnvironmentAlabama Rivers Alliance IncFRESHWATER LAND TRUST: $224,240 · EnvironmentFRESHWATER LAND TRUSTBLACK WARRIOR RIVERKEEPER INC: $172,340 · EnvironmentBLACK WARRIOR RIVERKEEPER INCTENNESSEE RIVERKEEPER: $141,340 · EnvironmentTENNESSEE RIVERKEEPERMobile Baykeeper Inc: $119,340 · EnvironmentMobile Baykeeper IncCOOSA RIVERKEEPER INC: $116,340 · EnvironmentCOOSA RIVERKEEPER INCALABAMA ENVIRNOMENTAL COUNCIL INC: $114,080 · EnvironmentALABAMA ENVIRNOMENTAL COUNCIL INCCAHABA RIVERKEEPER INC: $87,840 · EnvironmentCAHABA RIVERKEEPER INC+1 more: $38,340 · EnvironmentSOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $283,340 · OtherSOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENT…SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER: $81,000 · OtherSOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $76,000 · OtherAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUSTNATURE CONSERVANCY OF ALABAMA: $71,340 · OtherNATURE CONSERVANCY OF ALABAMACHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER KEEPER: $57,800 · OtherCHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER KEEPERROOM IN THE INN INC: $52,340 · OtherROOM IN THE INN INCIndividual grant recipient: $40,000 · OtherRIVER NETWORK: $32,000 · OtherNASHVILLE ZOO HELLBENDER CONSERVATION: $31,551 · Other+5 more: $61,840 · Other+5 moreLITERACY COUNCIL OF CENTRAL ALABAMA: $115,340 · EducationGlobal Education Center: $48,340 · EducationALABAMA WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $113,340 · AnimalsPET COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $30,340 · AnimalsCahaba River Society Inc: $89,840 · Community ImprovementAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $40,340 · Food & Nutrition
Environment$1,619,200Other$787,211Education$163,680Animals$143,680Community Improvement$89,840Food & Nutrition$40,340

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $346,000 over 9y, 1.9% of budgetSOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $283,340 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetAlabama Rivers Alliance Inc: $259,340 over 9y, 10% of budgetFRESHWATER LAND TRUST: $224,240 over 9y, 2.1% of budgetBLACK WARRIOR RIVERKEEPER INC: $172,340 over 9y, 5.0% of budgetTENNESSEE RIVERKEEPER: $141,340 over 9y, 15% of budgetMobile Baykeeper Inc: $119,340 over 9y, 1.7% of budgetCOOSA RIVERKEEPER INC: $116,340 over 9y, 5.9% of budgetLITERACY COUNCIL OF CENTRAL ALABAMA: $115,340 over 9y, 2.4% of budgetALABAMA ENVIRNOMENTAL COUNCIL INC: $114,080 over 9y, 21% of budgetALABAMA WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $113,340 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetCahaba River Society Inc: $89,840 over 9y, 2.7% of budgetCAHABA RIVERKEEPER INC: $87,840 over 9y, 5.3% of budgetGlobal Education Center: $48,340 over 6y, 4.4% of budgetAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $40,340 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetRIVER NETWORK: $38,340 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetPET COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $30,340 over 2y, 0.8% 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 THE LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Alabama Rivers Alliance Inc ↗
  • Who funds FRESHWATER LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds BLACK WARRIOR RIVERKEEPER INC ↗
  • Who funds TENNESSEE RIVERKEEPER ↗
  • Who funds Mobile Baykeeper Inc ↗
  • Who funds COOSA RIVERKEEPER INC ↗
  • Who funds LITERACY COUNCIL OF CENTRAL ALABAMA ↗
  • Who funds ALABAMA ENVIRNOMENTAL COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds ALABAMA WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds Cahaba River Society Inc ↗
  • Who funds CAHABA RIVERKEEPER INC ↗
  • Who funds Global Education Center ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds RIVER NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds PET COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗

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.

Stephens FoundationThe Daniel Foundation…The Community Foundat…PatagoniaorgStrain FoundationThe Hugh Kaul Foundat…Susan Mott Webb Chari…Mike and Gillian Good…A Better South Founda…Alabama Rivers Allian…The Gratitude Foundat…Robert R Meyer Founda…
Stephens FoundationAL24.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Stephens Foundation · The Daniel Foundation of Alabama · The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham · Patagoniaorg · Strain Foundation · The Hugh Kaul Foundation · Susan Mott Webb Charitable Trust · Mike and Gillian Goodrich Foundation · A Better South Foundation · Alabama Rivers Alliance Inc · The Gratitude Foundation · Robert R Meyer 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 Abahac Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Abahac Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report 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 30 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 Abahac’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