Skip to content
Southern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Southern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

The association consists of 16 member states (al, ar, fl, ga, hi, ky, la, ms, nc, ok, sc, tn, tx, va, wv and commonwealth of puerto rico) whose purpose is to encourage a balanced transportation system within the member states, to study various material, methods of construction and maintenance, to discuss solutions to the problems…

$281k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
13
States reached
$30k
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$1.5M
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$15,000
Median grant
13
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LOUISIANA DOT$30,000
VIRGINIA DOT$30,000
INTERACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR KIDS INC$30,000
MISSISSIPPI DOT$30,000
FLORIDA DOT$30,000
ARKANSAS DOT$15,000
TENNESSEE DOT$15,000
SOUTH CAROLINA DOT$15,000
KENTUCKY DOT$15,000
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION$15,000
TEXAS DOT$15,000
WEST VIRGINIA DOT$15,000
NORTH CAROLINA DOT$15,000
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA$10,000
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 90% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%TEXAS DOT: $16k → 10%SOUTH CAROLINA DOT: $30k → 16%FLORIDA DOT: $30k → 19%ALABAMA DOT: $16k → 18%ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: $15k → 11%NORTH CAROLINA DOT: $16k → 8%KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY: $25k → 8%INTERACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR KIDS INC: $30k → 12%GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $25k → 13%TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION INC: $16k → 14%SAVANNAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $25k → 16%GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: $25k → 24%WEST VIRGINIA DOT: $16k → 18%MISSISSIPPI DOT: $30k → 23%VIRGINIA DOT: $30k → 22%SOUTH CAROLINA DOT: $15k → 9%TEXAS DOT: $15k → 10%SOUTH CAROLINA DOT: $16k → 16%FLORIDA DOT: $16k → 19%ALABAMA DOT: $15k → 18%NORTH CAROLINA DOT: $15k → 8%GEORGIA DOT: $16k → 13%THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA: $25k → 27%WEST VIRGINIA DOT: $15k → 18%MISSISSIPPI DOT: $15k → 23%VIRGINIA DOT: $16k → 22%TEXAS DOT: $15k → 10%SOUTH CAROLINA DOT: $15k → 16%FLORIDA DOT: $15k → 19%ALABAMA DOT: $15k → 18%NORTH CAROLINA DOT: $15k → 8%WEST VIRGINIA DOT: $15k → 18%MISSISSIPPI DOT: $15k → 23%VIRGINIA DOT: $15k → 22%TEXAS DOT: $15k → 10%SOUTH CAROLINA DOT: $15k → 16%FLORIDA DOT: $15k → 19%ALABAMA DOT: $15k → 18%NORTH CAROLINA DOT: $15k → 8%WEST VIRGINIA DOT: $15k → 18%MISSISSIPPI DOT: $15k → 23%VIRGINIA DOT: $15k → 22%TEXAS DOT: $15k → 10%SOUTH CAROLINA DOT: $15k → 16%FLORIDA DOT: $30k → 19%ALABAMA DOT: $15k → 18%WEST VIRGINIA DOT: $15k → 18%MISSISSIPPI DOT: $15k → 23%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

KY
WV
VA
AR
TN
NC
SC
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 14 repeat orgs$257k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
7

Total granted

$1.3M
$157k

Still filing today

0%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationArts & CultureOther
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

  • AD
    ARKANSAS DOT
    7× · 2018–2025 · $106k
  • NC
    North Carolina Department of Transportation
    6× · 2018–2025 · $106k
  • CO
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
    7× · 2018–2025 · $106k

Funded once

  • GI
    GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
    one grant, 2021 · $25k
  • GS
    Georgia Southern University Foundation Incgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +46%
  • SS
    SAVANNAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC AND SUBSIDIARIES
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +9%
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
04the 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 25 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
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ARKANSAS DOT: $105,585 · OtherARKANSAS DOTNorth Carolina Department of Transportation: $105,585 · OtherNorth Carolina Department of TransportationCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: $105,585 · OtherCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKYSTATE OF TENNESSEE: $105,585 · OtherSTATE OF TENNESSEEMISSISSIPPI DOT: $105,585 · OtherMISSISSIPPI DOTVirginia Department of Transportation: $105,585 · OtherVirginia Department of TransportationWEST VIRGINIA DOT: $105,585 · OtherWEST VIRGINIA DOTALABAMA DOT: $105,585 · OtherALABAMA DOTTEXAS DOT: $105,585 · OtherTEXAS DOTDONATIVOS LEGISLATIVOS (PR GOV): $75,585 · OtherFLORIDA DOT: $75,585 · OtherLOUISIANA DOT: $75,585 · OtherSOUTH CAROLINA DOT: $60,585 · Other+8 more: $196,585 · Other+8 moreGeorgia Southern University Foundation Inc: $25,000 · EducationKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · EducationTHE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION: $25,000 · EducationINTERACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR KIDS INC: $30,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$1,434,190Education$75,000Arts & Culture$30,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGeorgia Southern University Foundation Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSAVANNAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC AND SUBSIDIARIES: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Technical College System of Georgia Foundation: $16,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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 INTERACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR KIDS INC ↗
  • Who funds Georgia Southern University Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds SAVANNAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC AND SUBSIDIARIES ↗
  • Who funds KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds The Technical College System of Georgia Foundation ↗

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.

Georgia Power Foundat…The Community Foundat…The Blackbaud Giving …Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Georgia Power Foundation IncGA13.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Georgia Power Foundation Inc · The Community Foundation for Greater · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Southern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Southern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 25 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Southern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ 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