· Public charity
Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute
The corporation is formed to foster collaboration among government, industry, and academia to further the goal of organizing the u.s.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 88% of ADVANCED ROBOTICS FOR MANUFACTURING INSTITUTE’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 32 grants below total $11,150,304 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $12,490,582 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,340,278 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $18k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $38k
- $50k–250k14 grants · $2.2M
- $250k+14 grants · $8.9M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Grid Raster Inc | $1,224,002 |
| Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) | $1,124,413 |
| Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station | $972,225 |
| Carnegie Mellon University | $960,254 |
| Titan Robotics Inc | $862,700 |
| Siemens Corporation CT | $664,720 |
| ARIS Technology LLC | $462,214 |
| Westmoreland County Community College | $436,762 |
| CapSen Robotics Inc | $426,734 |
| ThoughtForge Corp | $420,802 |
| Catalyst Connection | $374,238 |
| The Boeing Company | $344,320 |
| Penn State University | $330,740 |
| Henderson Sewing Machine Co Inc | $310,834 |
| Lockheed Martin Corporation | $244,152 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY24–24, $47k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +33% since the first grant, against +2% for the ones you funded once.
41 repeat relationships — 26 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $974k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute4× · 2021–2024 · $3.3M · revenue +20%- CMCarnegie Mellon University5× · 2021–2025 · $2.7M · revenue +27%
- IRIUP RESEARCH INSTITUTE3× · 2023–2025 · $730k · revenue +51%
Funded once
- WSWILDER SYSTEMS LLCone grant, 2021 · $564k
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONone grant, 2021 · $546k
- ARApparel Robotics Corporationone grant, 2024 · $207k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Accelerating manufacturing excellence.
The mission is to lead the rapid development of cross-industry R&D programs to build the global competitiveness of its manufacturing partners.
The corporation is formed to foster collaboration among government, industry, and academia to further the goal of organizing the u.s. capabilities concerning robots in the manufacturing environment into a coherent ecosystem that will…
Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
Advancing our customers' manufacturing competitiveness through innovation in joining and allied technologies
None
To provide leadership and support for the national effort to increase the representation of successful african american, native american and latinx women and men in engineering and technology, math, and science-based careers.
To enhance the global competitiveness of michigan's small to medium-sized manufacturers.
Acec research institute serve as the leading source of knowledge and thought leadership for creating a more sustainable, safe, secure, and technically advanced built environment. identify, fund, and provide industry wide research forecasts…
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining and the most unlike its peers is AmSkills Inc. 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 23 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
20 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 20 of the 69 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ↗
- Who funds Carnegie Mellon University ↗
- Who funds IUP RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds AmSkills Inc ↗
- Who funds NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds CATALYST CONNECTION ↗
- Who funds Southwest Research Institute ↗
- Who funds WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds COMMONWEALTH CENTER FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING ↗
- Who funds REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Carnegie Mellon University · Johns Hopkins University · Ui Labs Inc · Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute · University of Southern California · Worcester Polytechnic Institute · Northeastern University · West Virginia University Research Corporation · Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation · Vanderbilt University · Trustees of Boston University · Northwestern University
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 Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute 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.
- Worcester Polytechnic Institute — 8% of income from government
- Northeastern University — 7% of income from government
- AmSkills Inc — 3% of income from government
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.