Skip to content
Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$12M
Granted FY2025still arriving
32
Grants FY2025still arriving
13
States reached
$1.2M
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Science & Tech$57MEducation$2.9MEmployment$614kCommunity Improvement$240kHuman Services$47k
02FY2025 · 32 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 32 grants below total $11,150,304, the rows itemized in this filing. The $12,490,582 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,340,278 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $38k
  • $50k–250k14 grants · $2.2M
  • $250k+14 grants · $8.9M
$239,100
Median grant
13
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Center of Life: $47k → 11%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

WA
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
WY
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
MO
VA
KS
TN
SC
AL
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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$57M · 41 repeat orgs$3.6M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against +10% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

41
21

Total granted

$57M
$2.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+10%

Still filing today

27%
24%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $974k went to new ones.

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

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

’21’22’23’24’25
EducationScience & TechHuman 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

  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
    4× · 2021–2024 · $3.3M · revenue +20%
  • CM
    Carnegie Mellon University
    5× · 2021–2025 · $2.7M · revenue +27%
  • IR
    IUP RESEARCH INSTITUTE
    3× · 2023–2025 · $730k · revenue +51%

Funded once

  • WS
    WILDER SYSTEMS LLC
    one grant, 2021 · $564k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
    one grant, 2021 · $546k
  • AR
    Apparel Robotics Corporation
    one grant, 2024 · $207k
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
Mantec Inc

Accelerating manufacturing excellence.

Community Improvement
2
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

The mission is to lead the rapid development of cross-industry R&D programs to build the global competitiveness of its manufacturing partners.

Community Improvement
3
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. capabilities concerning robots in the manufacturing environment into a coherent ecosystem that will…

Science & Tech
4
Drexel University

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…

Education
5
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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.

Education
6
Edison Welding Institute

Advancing our customers' manufacturing competitiveness through innovation in joining and allied technologies

Employment
7
Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Res Resource Center Inc

None

Community Improvement
8
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering Inc

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.

Civil Rights
9
Industrial Technology Institute

To enhance the global competitiveness of michigan's small to medium-sized manufacturers.

—
10
The Manufacturing Academy
Employment
11
Acec Research Institute

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…

Unclassified
12
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

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…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining; 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.
04the grantee network

20 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. 20 of the 69 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)
20/20
Grantees still filing
15/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SIEMENS CORPORATION: $10,941,426 · OtherSIEMENS CORPORATIONTITAN ROBOTICS INC: $5,096,472 · OtherTITAN ROBOTICS INCTHE BOEING COMPANY: $3,726,892 · OtherTHE BOEING COMPANYTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $3,547,328 · OtherTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITYGrid Raster Inc: $3,136,445 · OtherGrid Raster IncCarnegie Mellon University: $2,712,289 · OtherARIS TECHNOLOGY: $2,178,445 · OtherLOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION: $1,987,944 · Other+44 more: $20,171,777 · Other+44 moreRensselaer Polytechnic Institute: $3,250,204 · EducationRensselaer…UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $638,754 · EducationUNIVERSITY…AmSkills Inc: $613,894 · EducationAmSkills I…NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: $561,488 · EducationNORTHEASTE…PITTSBURGH CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL TOOLING AND MACHINING FOUNDATION INC: $233,657 · Education+5 more: $384,345 · Education+5 moreIUP RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $730,188 · Science & TechCATALYST CONNECTION: $384,238 · Science & TechSouthwest Research Institute: $331,847 · Science & TechCOMMONWEALTH CENTER FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING: $247,918 · Science & TechAMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS: $99,998 · Science & Tech+1 more: $19,162 · Science & TechCENTER OF LIFE: $47,000 · Human Services
Other$53,499,018Education$5,682,342Science & Tech$1,813,351Human Services$47,000

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 budgetRensselaer Polytechnic Institute: $3,250,204 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCarnegie Mellon University: $2,712,289 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetIUP RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $730,188 over 3y, 6.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $638,754 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAmSkills Inc: $613,894 over 5y, 11% of budgetNORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: $561,488 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCATALYST CONNECTION: $384,238 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSouthwest Research Institute: $331,847 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE: $307,978 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMONWEALTH CENTER FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING: $247,918 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetREGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $239,963 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetPITTSBURGH CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL TOOLING AND MACHINING FOUNDATION INC: $233,657 over 3y, 8.2% of budgetWASHINGTON MANUFACTURING SERVICES: $121,325 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetAMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS: $99,998 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCENTER OF LIFE: $47,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR DEFENSE MANUFACTURING AND MACHINING: $19,162 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEXTFLEX LEARNING PROGRAMS: $18,501 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetINDUSTRIAL SEWING AND INNOVATION CENTER: $10,000 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 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 ↗

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.

Carnegie Mellon Unive…Johns Hopkins Univers…Ui Labs IncRensselaer Polytechni…University of Souther…Worcester Polytechnic…Northeastern Universi…West Virginia Univers…Claude Worthington Be…Vanderbilt UniversityTrustees of Boston Un…Northwestern Universi…
Carnegie Mellon UniversityPA29.6× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute: 8% of income from government
  • Northeastern University: 7% of income from government
  • AmSkills Inc: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely 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 69 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 Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute’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