Skip to content
Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
17
Grants FY2024still arriving
10
States reached
$245k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Science & Tech$7.7MHealth$5.6MEducation$2.6MEnvironment$2.2MPublic Safety & Disaster$464kHousing & Shelter$455kEmployment$219k
02FY2024 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $103k
  • $50k–250k14 grants · $1.4M
$72,514
Median grant
10
States reached
$4.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS$245,274
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI$149,331
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY RESEARCH FOU$118,114
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS$112,500
OAKLAND UNIVERSITY$111,859
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$109,996
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES$92,844
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA$84,836
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES$72,514
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS$64,619
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY RESEARCH FOU$64,616
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH C$63,721
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$59,062
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND$58,348
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH$42,240
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 68% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $128k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: $154k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY: $113k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: $269k → 10%THE UCLA FOUNDATION: $127k → 14%NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING TECH: $294k → 25%OAKLAND UNIVERSITY: $195k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $165k → 8%COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES: $234k → 7%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH C: $305k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $783k → 14%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND: $282k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA: $188k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $261k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY RESEARCH FOU: $153k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $117k → 15%THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV: $145k → 16%NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING TECH: $124k → 25%OAKLAND UNIVERSITY: $183k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $128k → 8%COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES: $187k → 7%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH C: $295k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $308k → 14%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND: $281k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA: $141k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY RESEARCH FOU: $120k → 15%OAKLAND UNIVERSITY: $128k → 8%COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES: $165k → 7%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH C: $225k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $271k → 14%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND: $211k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA: $121k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY RESEARCH FOU: $118k → 15%OAKLAND UNIVERSITY: $112k → 8%COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES: $164k → 7%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH C: $211k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $245k → 14%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND: $205k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY RESEARCH FOU: $118k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $125k → 15%COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES: $155k → 7%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH C: $177k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $126k → 14%COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES: $150k → 7%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH C: $144k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $113k → 14%COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES: $120k → 7%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH C: $125k → 19%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

IL
MI
MA
OR
NV
SD
IN
OH
PA
CT
CA
UT
CO
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
SC
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 7% of Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 2.0% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$18M · 21 repeat orgs$851k to everyone else

21 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
12

Total granted

$18M
$851k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+28%

Still filing today

14%
8%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time
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 ILLINOIS
    5× · 2020–2024 · $2.4M
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
    5× · 2020–2024 · $2.0M
  • CS
    COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.8M

Funded once

  • CS
    COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2020 · $208k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY
    one grant, 2023 · $113k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO
    one grant, 2020 · $63k
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
05the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 34 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)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $2,412,962 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ILLINOISUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $2,027,411 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIACOLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES: $1,827,142 · OtherCOLORADO SCHOOL OF MINESUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY RESEARCH FOU: $1,803,469 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY RESEARCH FOUVIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND: $1,393,280 · OtherVIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE ANDUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: $1,338,142 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKYOAKLAND UNIVERSITY: $684,631 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $636,352 · Other+21 more: $4,170,102 · Other+21 moreWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION: $1,791,269 · EducationWEST VIRGINIA UNI…WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $434,765 · EducationWEST VIRGINIA UNI…University of San Francisco: $375,546 · EducationUniversity of San…UCLA FOUNDATION: $224,235 · EducationUCLA FOUNDATION+1 more: $62,500 · Education
Other$16,293,491Education$2,888,315

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION: $1,791,269 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $434,765 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetUniversity of San Francisco: $375,546 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUCLA FOUNDATION: $224,235 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of the Pacific: $62,500 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 WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds University of San Francisco ↗
  • Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds University of the Pacific ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health Inc. 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%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–90%
    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 34 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health’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