Skip to content
Appalachian Sustainable Development at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Appalachian Sustainable Development

To educate residents and farmers of sw virginia and east tennessee the benefits of organic farming and forestry conservation

$1.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
15
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$284k
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 2024.

Community Improvement$1.6MFood & Nutrition$853kHousing & Shelter$406kEnvironment$401kEducation$330kYouth Development$194kSocial Science$158kScience & Tech$87kOther$0
02FY2024 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $30k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $187k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $420k
  • $250k+2 grants · $541k
$30,915
Median grant
5
States reached
$4.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COALFIELD DEVELOPMENT$284,326
APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC$257,129
RURAL ACTION$165,554
SAVANNA INSTITUTE$142,434
INTERLACE COMMONS$111,705
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI$44,285
BRISTOL'S PROMISE$35,000
CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OF$30,915
EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY$28,836
RADFORD UNIVERSITY$28,269
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY$20,119
APPALACHIAN RCD COUNCIL$8,508
SPROUTING FARMS INC$7,681
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA$7,258
UNITED PLANT SAVERS$6,151
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 17%. 76% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 17%APPALACHIAN RCD COUNCIL: $27k → 14%RURAL RESOURCES: $26k → 17%APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $276k → 22%REFRESH APPALACHIA: $130k → 18%WVU REARCH CORPORATION: $62k → 19%UNLIMITED FUTURE: $50k → 19%FAYETTE COUNTY COMMISSION: $24k → 20%SPROUTING FARMS INC: $170k → 23%BRISTOL'S PROMISE: $63k → 21%RADFORD UNIVERSITY: $28k → 25%INTERLACE COMMONS: $135k → 9%KENTUCKY CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND: $31k → 13%MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATION FOR ECONOMIC: $71k → 16%APPALACHIAN RCD COUNCIL: $27k → 14%RURAL RESOURCES: $24k → 17%APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $257k → 22%REFRESH APPALACHIA: $125k → 18%WVU REARCH CORPORATION: $25k → 19%UNLIMITED FUTURE: $34k → 19%SPROUTING FARMS INC: $126k → 23%BRISTOL'S PROMISE: $62k → 21%INTERLACE COMMONS: $112k → 9%KENTUCKY CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND: $29k → 13%COMMUNITY FARM ALLIANCE: $30k → 16%APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $173k → 22%REFRESH APPALACHIA: $79k → 18%SPROUTING FARMS INC: $70k → 23%BRISTOL'S PROMISE: $35k → 21%INTERLACE COMMONS: $101k → 9%COMMUNITY FARM ALLIANCE: $27k → 16%EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $40k → 14%APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $73k → 22%REFRESH APPALACHIA: $50k → 18%SPROUTING FARMS INC: $59k → 23%BRISTOL'S PROMISE: $34k → 21%EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $29k → 14%APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $56k → 22%REFRESH APPALACHIA: $22k → 18%SPROUTING FARMS INC: $38k → 23%EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $28k → 14%APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $28k → 22%SPROUTING FARMS INC: $38k → 23%EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $22k → 14%APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $21k → 22%RURAL ACTION: $166k → 22%RURAL ACTION: $28k → 22%RURAL ACTION: $21k → 22%RURAL ACTION: $16k → 22%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.0M · 22 repeat orgs$143k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +74% since the first grant, against +67% for those funded once.

22 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
1

Total granted

$4.0M
$71k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+74%
+67%

Still filing today

64%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $72k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEducationPhilanthropyHousing & ShelterFood & 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

  • CD
    COALFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    5× · 2019–2023 · $406k · revenue +310%
  • IC
    INTERLACE COMMONS INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $347k · revenue +14% · 29% of their budget
  • RA
    RURAL ACTION INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $231k · revenue +197%

Funded once

  • MA
    MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $71k · revenue +67%
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
Rural Futures Fund
—
2
Center for an Agricultural Economy Inc

The center for an agricultural economy supports rural communities and working landscapes by building a more interconnected local food system.

Environment
3
Rural Advantage

The purpose of this corporation is to promote the connections between agriculture, the environment, and rural communities in order to improve ecological health, economic viability, and rural vitality.

Environment
4
Us Farmers and Ranchers Alliance

MISSION: bring all of American agriculture together, with farmers and ranchers at the center, to collectively identify and tackle critical, long-term issues. We collaborate, communicate, educate, advocate and utilize science to advance the…

Community Improvement
5
Us Farming and Ranching Foundation

MISSION: bring all of American agriculture together, with farmers and ranchers at the center, to collectively identify and tackle critical, long-term issues. We collaborate, communicate, educate, advocate and utilize science to advance the…

Food & Nutrition
6
Rural Prosperity Center

To advance the socioeconomic and environmental well-being of rural communities.

Human Services
7
Center for Rural Culture

To preserve rural culture in the central virginia piedmont area by supporting local economy and agriculture, protecting rural landscapes and traditions, and conserving natural and historic resources.

—
8
Wild Farm Alliance

To promote a healthy, viable agriculture.

Environment
9
Organic Association of Kentucky

To improve the health of the environment and communities by advancing organic regenerative agriculture to grow ecological resilience, economic viability and socially just futures for kentucky farmers through educational, technical and…

Food & Nutrition
10
Community Food Connections Inc

Support small farms and other businesses. Bring sustainable healthy products to the community.

Food & Nutrition
11
Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project

To help local farms thrive, link farmers to markets and supporters, and build healthy communities through connections to local food.

Environment
12
Socially Responsible Agriculture Project Inc

To conduct charitable, scientific and educational activities designed to foster the production of food in a manner that is economically viable and environmentally sound and provides for healthy and humanely raised products.

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kentucky Center for Agriculture and Rural Development Inc; the most unlike its peers is Appalachian Resource Conservation & Development Council. 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

15 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. 15 of the 26 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
10/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMIC: $884,013 · OtherAPPALACHIAN CENTER FOR ECONOMICSPROUTING FARMS CORPORATION: $509,935 · OtherSPROUTING FARMS CORPORATIONCOALFIELD DEVELOPMENT: $375,724 · OtherCOALFIELD DEVELOPMENTSAVANNA INSTITUTE: $158,248 · OtherSAVANNA INSTITUTEEAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $143,479 · OtherEAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY+7 more: $227,473 · Other+7 moreINTERLACE COMMONS INC: $347,170 · EnvironmentINTERLACE COMM…Rural Resources: $64,807 · EnvironmentRural Resource…Appalachian Resource Conservation & Development Council: $61,746 · EnvironmentAppalachian Re…UNITED PLANT SAVERS: $27,378 · Environment+1 more: $13,182 · EnvironmentCOALFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $406,400 · Housing & ShelterCOALFIELD D…RURAL ACTION INC: $230,655 · Community ImprovementRURAL ACTI…MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC: $71,250 · Community ImprovementMOUNTAIN A…COMMUNITY FARM ALLIANCE INC: $70,425 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY …Bristols Promise Youth Networking Alliance: $193,727 · Youth DevelopmentWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION: $87,052 · EducationRADFORD UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $60,128 · EducationKENTUCKY CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT INC: $90,568 · Food & NutritionUNLIMITED FUTURE INC: $83,820 · Philanthropy
Other$2,298,872Environment$514,283Housing & Shelter$406,400Community Improvement$372,330Youth Development$193,727Education$147,180Food & Nutrition$90,568Philanthropy$83,820

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSPROUTING FARMS CORPORATION: $509,935 over 7y, 41% of budgetCOALFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $406,400 over 5y, 2.0% of budgetINTERLACE COMMONS INC: $347,170 over 3y, 29% of budgetRURAL ACTION INC: $230,655 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetBristols Promise Youth Networking Alliance: $193,727 over 4y, 33% of budgetKENTUCKY CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT INC: $90,568 over 5y, 3.3% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION: $87,052 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNLIMITED FUTURE INC: $83,820 over 2y, 25% of budgetMOUNTAIN ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC: $71,250 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetCOMMUNITY FARM ALLIANCE INC: $70,425 over 3y, 3.4% of budgetRural Resources: $64,807 over 3y, 10.0% of budgetAppalachian Resource Conservation & Development Council: $61,746 over 3y, 4.3% of budgetRADFORD UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $60,128 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetUNITED PLANT SAVERS: $27,378 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetWHOLESOME WAVE INC: $13,182 over 2y, 0.2% 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 SPROUTING FARMS CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds COALFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds INTERLACE COMMONS INC ↗
  • Who funds RURAL ACTION INC ↗
  • Who funds Bristols Promise Youth Networking Alliance ↗
  • Who funds KENTUCKY CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds UNLIMITED FUTURE INC ↗
  • Who funds MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY FARM ALLIANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds Rural Resources ↗
  • Who funds Appalachian Resource Conservation & Development Council ↗
  • Who funds RADFORD UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED PLANT SAVERS ↗
  • Who funds WHOLESOME WAVE 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.

Claude Worthington Be…Rockefeller Family Fu…Mountain Association …Coalfield Development…The Educational Found…American Heart Associ…Rockefeller Philanthr…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Claude Worthington Benedum FoundationPA15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc · Mountain Association for Community Economic Development Inc · Coalfield Development Corporation · The Educational Foundation of America · American Heart Association Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Appalachian Sustainable Development funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Appalachian Sustainable Development. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%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
    1get 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 26 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 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 Appalachian Sustainable Development’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