How much did IAA Foundation grant in FY2024?

The 69 grants below total $635,956 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $926,902 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $290,946 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 · FY2024

Under $10k66 grants · $545k
$10k–50k2 grants · $40k
$50k–250k1 grant · $51k

$8,471

Median grant

States reached

$9.9M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
University of Illinois	$50,628
Agricultural Edu Partnership	$24,621
Saline CFB Foundation	$15,754
Edwards CFB	$9,263
Macoupin County Ag Edu Found	$9,263
Madison County Caree	$9,263
Warren Henderson CFB Fndation	$9,263
DeKalb CFB	$9,263
Adams CFB Foundation	$9,263
Stephenson CFB	$9,263
Cook CFB Foundation	$9,263
Effingham CFB	$9,263
Livingston County SWCD	$9,263
LaSalle CFB Foundation	$9,263
Winnebago CFB	$9,263

02The need

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 80% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

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.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$4.9M · 116 repeat orgs$105k to everyone else

116 repeat relationships — 67 still active in FY2024, 49 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

116

Total granted

$4.9M

$90k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%

+66%

Still filing today

78%

82%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Food & NutritionEducationPhilanthropyRecreation & SportsOther

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

WF
WINNEBAGO-BOONE FARM BUREAU
8× · 2017–2024 · $74k · revenue +31%
DC
DEKALB COUNTY FARM BUREAU
8× · 2017–2024 · $74k · revenue +4%
EC
Edwards County Farm Bureau
8× · 2017–2024 · $73k · revenue +68%

Funded once

SC
Sangamon County Farm Bureaugraduated
one grant, 2017 · $9k · revenue +56%
OC
OGLE COUNTY FARM BUREAUgraduated
one grant, 2017 · $9k · revenue +123%
SC
Shelby County Farm Bureau
one grant, 2021 · $9k · revenue +23%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Jefferson County Farm Bureau

To improve the economic well being of agriculture in our communities

—

Marion County Farm BureauInc

To increase net income of farmers and ranchers and to improve the quality of rural life and work for the betterment of agriculture.

—

Mississippi Farm Bureau Young Farmer Scholarship Foundation

—

Fayette County Farm Bureau

To improve the economic well being of agriculture and enrich the quality of farm family life.

—

Cecil County Farm Bureau

Promotion of agricultural issues

—

Calhoun County Farm Bureau

Providing information, representation, and services to improve the quality of life that reflects our agricultural heritage in calhoun county.

—

Newton County Farm Bureau Inc

Agriculture promotion

—

Greene County Farm Bureau

Providing information, representation, and services to improve the quality of life that reflects our agricultural heritage in greene county.

—

Lee County Farm BureauInc

Lee County Farm Bureau's mission is to work for the betterment of agriculture in Lee county.

—

Santa Clara County Farm Bureau

To work for solutions to the problems of the farm and rural community by use of organized action. to represent, protect, and advance the social, economic and educational interests of the farmers of santa clara county.

—

Schuyler County Farm Bureau

To improve the economic well-being of agriculture and enrich the quality of farm family life.

—

Midland County Farm Bureau

Midland county farm bureau is an independent, non-governmental, voluntary organization of farm families united for the purpose of analyzing their challenges and formulating action to achieve educational improvement, economic opportunity,…

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dupage County Farm Bureau and the most unlike its peers is Whiteside County Farm Bureau Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 83 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.8% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.8%1/126

the rest of the field

12%

8,890/72,233

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

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

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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 103 of the 129 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

101/103

Grantees still filing

88/103

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$4,178,399Food & Nutrition$421,324Philanthropy$209,316Education$194,319Recreation & Sports$31,913

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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Illinois Agricultural AssociationIL117.7× affinity54 shared granteesties to 1 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Illinois Agricultural Association · The Growmark Foundation · Amazonsmile 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 IAA 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

11report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to IAA Foundation?

Find your warmest path to IAA Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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