· 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $50k–250k2 grants · $270k
- $250k+8 grants · $58M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your 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 your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +194% since the first grant, against -7% for the ones you 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- TATHE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION3× · 2019–2021 · $730k · revenue ×44
- SFSoul Food Community Development Corporation Inc2× · 2021–2022 · $100k · revenue +194%
- VVOTERIDERS2× · 2021–2022 · $100k · revenue +429%
Funded once
- AFAmericans for Strength and Freedomone grant, 2020 · $4.5M · 61% of their budget
- BTBRIDGE TO DEMOCRACYone grant, 2022 · $2.6M
- UWUnited We Succeedone grant, 2022 · $1.9M · revenue -44% · 85% of their budget
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
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.
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.
All Americans Vote aims to motivate underrepresented Americans to engage in the most patriotic of exercises - voting!
American Voice's mission is to create a more prosperous, fair and free
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…
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.
The organization works to defend, protect, and advance bedrock American values.
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.
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.
To educate citizens on the societal benefits of sound economic, regulatory and legal policies.
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.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Freedom for All and 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.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
35 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, 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; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds AMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIA ↗
- Who funds Americans for Strength and Freedom ↗
- Who funds CHOOSE CHICAGO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds United We Succeed ↗
- Who funds Preserve American Ideals ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL ↗
- Who funds FELLOW AMERICANS ↗
- Who funds Story Network Foundation ↗
- Who funds Protecting Liberty Justice and Freedom ↗
- Who funds The Voters Project A NJ Nonprofit Corporation ↗
- Who funds CounterAct Fund ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION ↗
- Who funds THE FRANKLIN FORUM ↗
- Who funds Together Action Fund ↗
- Who funds 1K Women Strong Inc ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ATLANTA INC ↗
- Who funds CELEBRATE NEW JERSEY NOW INC ↗
- Who funds PHILADELPHIA LAWYERS FOR SOCIAL EQUITY ↗
- Who funds UNITE HERE ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds Preserve American Values ↗
- Who funds COUNTERACT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BUILDING THE FUTURE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ONE ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds Soul Food Community Development Corporation Inc ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · America Votes · Education Reform Now Advocacy Inc · Tides Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Ab Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.