Skip to content
Intertribal Agriculture Council at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Intertribal Agriculture Council

The INTERTRIBAL AGRICULTURE COUNCIL was founded in 1987 to pursue and promote the conservation, development and use of our agricultural resources of american indian and alaska native tribes.

$1.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
9
States reached
$514k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $1,237,091, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,914,523 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $677,432 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $44k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $407k
  • $250k+2 grants · $778k
$81,223
Median grant
9
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE$513,770
UVE$264,652
RURAL COALITION$99,385
ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY$96,611
ANNIE'S PROJECT-EDUCATION FOR FARM WOMEN$81,223
INDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE$69,804
AKIPTAN$60,000
UNITED SOUTH & EASTERN TRIBES INC$44,016
INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL$7,630
02The need
02

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 (FY24–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%UVE: $265k → 14%INDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $70k → 18%UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE: $514k → 14%RURAL COALITION: $99k → 14%INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL: $8k → 12%UNITED SOUTH & EASTERN TRIBES INC: $44k → 14%ANNIE'S PROJECT-EDUCATION FOR FARM WOMEN: $81k → 15%ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY: $97k → 34%AKIPTAN: $60k → 25%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
OR
SD
CA
NM
AR
TN
DC
MS
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 field
03the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 9 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
2/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE: $513,770 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLEUVE: $264,652 · OtherUVEALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY: $96,611 · OtherALCORN STATE UNIVERSITYUNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBESINC: $44,016 · OtherRural Coalition: $99,385 · Community ImprovementRural Coa…ANNIES PROJECT-EDUCATION FOR FARM WOMEN: $81,223 · EducationINDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $69,804 · Food & NutritionAKIPTAN INC: $60,000 · Public BenefitINTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL: $7,630 · Environment
Other$919,049Community Improvement$99,385Education$81,223Food & Nutrition$69,804Public Benefit$60,000Environment$7,630

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRural Coalition: $99,385 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetANNIES PROJECT-EDUCATION FOR FARM WOMEN: $81,223 over 1y, 17% of budgetINDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $69,804 over 1y, 13% of budgetAKIPTAN INC: $60,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetUNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBESINC: $44,016 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetINTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL: $7,630 over 1y, 0.7% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Intertribal Agriculture Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Intertribal Agriculture Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Intertribal Timber Council: 100% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1rely 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 9 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 Intertribal Agriculture Council’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