Skip to content
The Arctica and Abbey Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Arctica and Abbey Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$62k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$15k
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.

Animals$181kEnvironment$132kArts & Culture$105kHuman Services$37k
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k10 grants · $32k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
$3,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$999k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SMITHSONIAN$15,000
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND$15,000
KALAMAZOO HUMANE SOCIETY$5,000
PAWS WITH A CAUSE$5,000
BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY$5,000
SIERRA CLUB$3,000
BINDER PARK ZOO$3,000
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERAT$3,000
SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN LAND CONSERVANCY$2,000
SPCA OF SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN$2,000
MICHIGAN AUDUBON SOCIETY$2,000
AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY$2,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–24, $37k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%PAWS WITH A CAUSE: $5k → 10%PAWS WITH A CAUSE: $5k → 10%PAWS WITH A CAUSE: $5k → 10%PAWS WITH A CAUSE: $5k → 10%PAWS WITH A CAUSE: $5k → 10%PAWS WITH A CAUSE: $5k → 10%PAWS WITH A CAUSE: $5k → 10%PAWS WITH A CAUSE: $2k → 10%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$455k · 12 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
0

Total granted

$455k
$0

Still filing today

92%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
AnimalsEnvironmentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $105k · revenue +62%
  • BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $39k · revenue +31%
  • PW
    Paws With A Cause
    8× · 2017–2024 · $37k · revenue +86%

Funded once

    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
    Defenders of Wildlife

    Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

    Animals
    2
    Land Conservancy of West Michigan

    Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

    Environment
    3
    National Audubon Society Inc

    We work towards a future where birds thrive across the americas because audubon is a powerful, diverse, and ever-growing force for conservation. (continued on schedule o).

    Environment
    4
    The Wildlife Society

    The wildlife society's mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through science-based management and conservation.

    Animals
    5
    Denver Zoological Foundation

    Inspiring communities to save wildlife for future generations.

    Animals
    6
    Global Animal Partnership
    Animals
    7
    American Humane Association

    Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…

    Animals
    8
    Maine Audubon Society

    Maine Audubon works to conserve Maine's wildlife and habitat by engaging people of all ages in education, conservation, and action. We are helping the people of Maine become the nation's most informed and effective stewards of wildlife and…

    Environment
    9
    Wildlife Protection Solutions

    To protect endangered species.

    Animals
    10
    Arizona Wildlife Federation

    Arizona Wildlife Federation's purpose is to promote and encourage the conservation, propagation, development and management of fish, game and other wildlife; to promote and encourage the wise use, conservation and restoration of waters,…

    Animals
    11
    Progressive Animal Welfare Society aka Paws

    A champion for animals since 1967, PAWS is a nationally recognized leader - rehabilitating injured and orphaned wildlife, sheltering and adopting homeless cats and dogs, and educating people to make a better world for animals and people.

    Animals
    12
    Huron Pines Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc

    It is our mission at huron pines to conserve and enhance northern michigan's natural resources to ensure healthy water, protected places and vibrant communities. for alomst 50 years, our work across the forests, lakes and streams of…

    Environment
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southwest Michigan Land Conservency Inc; the most unlike its peers is National Wildlife Federation. 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

    11 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. 11 of the 12 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)
    4
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    11/11
    Grantees still filing
    9/11
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: $38,500 · AnimalsBEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETYKALAMAZOO COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $34,000 · AnimalsKALAMAZOO COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETYNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $27,500 · AnimalsNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATIONBinder Park Zoological Society Inc: $23,000 · AnimalsBinder Park Zoological Society IncAmerican Bird Conservancy: $20,000 · AnimalsAmerican Bird ConservancySOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS OF SW MICHIGAN: $18,000 · AnimalsSOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO…WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $105,000 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INCMICHIGAN AUDUBON SOCIETY: $20,000 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN AUDUBON SOCIETYSOUTHWEST MICHIGAN LAND CONSERVENCY INC: $12,000 · EnvironmentSOUTHWEST MICHIGAN LAND CONSERVENC…SMITHSONIAN: $105,000 · OtherSMITHSONIANSIERRA CLUB: $15,000 · OtherSIERRA CLUBPaws With A Cause: $37,000 · Human ServicesPaws With…
    Animals$161,000Environment$137,000Other$120,000Human Services$37,000

    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 budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $105,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetBEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: $38,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPaws With A Cause: $37,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetKALAMAZOO COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $34,000 over 6y, 0.6% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $27,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetBinder Park Zoological Society Inc: $23,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetMICHIGAN AUDUBON SOCIETY: $20,000 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetAmerican Bird Conservancy: $20,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetSOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS OF SW MICHIGAN: $18,000 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $15,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHWEST MICHIGAN LAND CONSERVENCY INC: $12,000 over 8y, 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 WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
    • Who funds BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY ↗
    • Who funds Paws With A Cause ↗
    • Who funds KALAMAZOO COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
    • Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
    • Who funds Binder Park Zoological Society Inc ↗
    • Who funds MICHIGAN AUDUBON SOCIETY ↗
    • Who funds American Bird Conservancy ↗
    • Who funds SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS OF SW MICHIGAN ↗
    • Who funds SIERRA CLUB ↗
    • Who funds SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN LAND CONSERVENCY 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.

    John E Fetzer Institu…The Pfizer Foundation…American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
    John E Fetzer Institute IncMI13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: John E Fetzer Institute Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 The Arctica and Abbey Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Arctica and Abbey Foundation. 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%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
      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 12 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-PF 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 Arctica and Abbey’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