· Public charity
American Malting Barley Association Inc
The american malting barley association represents producers and consumers of malt to maintain or improve the effective and efficient manufacturing, transportation and use of malt and malt products, to encourage production of appropriate varieties of malting barley through research, education and public relations, and to maintain liason…
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 8 grants below total $380,700 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $400,500 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $19,800 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $9k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $97k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $275k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA | $112,300 |
| NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY | $102,350 |
| OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY | $60,000 |
| MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY | $43,600 |
| WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY | $20,400 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS | $20,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY | $13,250 |
| MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY | $8,800 |
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 +46% since the first grant, against -6% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k 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
- UOUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M
- NDNorth Dakota State University9× · 2017–2025 · $898k
- ARAgricultural Research Foundation9× · 2017–2025 · $531k · revenue +10%
Funded once
- VPVIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2022 · $10k
- TOTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2022 · $10k
- NANATIONAL AGRICULTURAL GENOTYPING CENTER INCone grant, 2022 · $8k · revenue -6%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
3 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. 3 of the 18 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.
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: The Nature Conservancy
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 American Malting Barley Association Inc 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Agricultural Research Foundation — 0% of income from government
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.