Skip to content

· Public charity

The Economic Development Partnership of Alabama Foundation Inc

Supporting organization for economic development partnership of alabama, inc.

$293k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$50k
Largest
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$3.8M
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $185k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$25,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$7.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BAER ENTERPRISES LLC DBA ZONE PROTECTS$50,000
EQUIPNX INC$50,000
DEVCLARITY LLC$25,000
NEPHSOL INC$25,000
AUTONOMA INC$25,000
KIMMIE STYLZ LLC$25,000
CROUX INC$25,000
HUNTSVILLE MAGAZINE LLC$25,000
NAIAD INC$12,500
VIVOSPHERE LLC$12,500
PAY4ME INC$10,000
HYDROPHOS SOLUTIONS$5,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%EDIFY ONLINE CORPORATION: $25k → 7%MAHO LLC: $63k → 12%BAER ENTERPRISES LLC DBA ZONE PROTECTS: $50k → 13%SYCAMORE PHYSICIAN CONTRACTING LLC: $28k → 13%FLASHTRACT INC: $50k → 15%ALABAMA SAWYER LLC: $100k → 16%VB IDEAS LLC: $50k → 19%VENTORLUX LLC: $100k → 22%MOSES D WEAVER JR DBA NATURE'S OWN CAROL'S SPRING WATER: $50k → 32%SELMA GOOD COMPANY LLC: $107k → 33%TENNIOT INC: $40k → 15%HOUSE PLANT COLLECTIVE: $50k → 16%LINC RESEARCH INC: $100k → 11%SOUTHERN SWADDLE: $26k → 13%ACCLINATE GENETICS INC: $50k → 11%MOXIE IOT LLC: $100k → 16%GLOBAL INSPECTIONS LLC: $50k → 19%APEX PRO LLC: $51k → 16%APEX PRO LLC: $50k → 16%DOMESTIQUE COFFEE LLC: $50k → 16%BIRMINGHAM COMPOST LLC: $50k → 16%JAMES A CAVALE III DBA INFLCR LLC: $50k → 16%INFLUENCER LLC: $50k → 16%GLOW LLC: $50k → 16%BOOK-IT LEGAL LLC: $51k → 16%CONSERV SOLUTIONS INC: $50k → 16%CONSERV SOLUTIONS INC: $50k → 16%POINTZ INC: $50k → 16%WYNDY LLC: $81k → 16%CONCUR MESSAGING INC: $50k → 16%CERFLUX INC: $100k → 16%CERFLUX INC: $50k → 16%MICHAEL LYNCH DBA CHONEX LLC: $85k → 16%THE WEALTH EDIT: $50k → 16%XPERTDOX LLC: $50k → 16%MOTIONMOBS LLC: $38k → 16%WEELTH INC: $50k → 16%O3 INSIGHT INC: $100k → 16%QUANTALYTIX INC: $100k → 16%IMMEDIATE SOLUTIONS INC: $50k → 16%VENDRIX INC: $50k → 16%GLOW LLC: $50k → 16%TRIALTUS BIOSCIENCE LLC: $50k → 16%ROBERT SHUFFLEBARGER DBA TRIALTUS BIOSCIENCE LLC: $50k → 16%IMMEDIATE SOLUTIONS INC: $50k → 16%AERBETIC INC: $50k → 16%CONSERV SOLUTIONS INC: $50k → 16%CLEARMIND INC: $50k → 16%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.

38%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 20 repeat orgs$2.3M to everyone else

20 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

20
45

Total granted

$1.4M
$2.1M

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 22% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $228k went to new ones.

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

  • CS
    CONSERV SOLUTIONS INC
    3× · 2019–2021 · $150k
  • CI
    CERFLUX INC
    2× · 2019–2020 · $150k
  • AP
    APEX PRO LLC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $101k

Funded once

  • SG
    SELMA GOOD COMPANY LLC
    one grant, 2017 · $107k
  • MI
    MOXIE IOT LLC
    one grant, 2020 · $100k
  • LR
    LINC RESEARCH INC
    one grant, 2017 · $100k
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

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.

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 2024, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 74 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)
0/0
Grantees still filing
0/0
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONSERV SOLUTIONS INC: $150,000 · OtherCERFLUX INC: $150,000 · Other+72 more: $3,463,050 · Other+72 more
Other$3,763,050

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

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 74 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 Economic Development Partnership of Alabama’s filings →

More from the funding graph