Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

American Council of Engineering Companies

The business association and voice of america's engineering industry, representing thousands of independent u.s.

$785k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
13
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 90% of AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES’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.

02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $150k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $630k
$50,000
Median grant
13
States reached
$33M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ACEC RHODE ISLAND$200,000
ACEC LOUISIANA$100,000
ACEC MICHIGAN$70,000
ACEC INDIANA$60,000
ACEC ILLINOIS$50,000
ACEC WASHINGTON$50,000
ACEC GEORGIA$50,000
NORTH DAKOTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL$50,000
ACEC VIRGINIA$45,000
ACEC NEW JERSEY$31,600
ACEC COLORADO$30,058
ACEC KENTUCKY$25,000
ACEC ARIZONA$18,750
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 75% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ACEC ARIZONA: $75k → 11%ACEC MINNESOTA: $120k → 11%ACEC CALIFORNIA: $125k → 12%ACEC NEW YORK: $10k → 14%ACEC OKLAHOMA: $30k → 16%ACEC RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $150k → 14%ACEC MICHIGAN: $70k → 16%ACEC WISCONSIN: $30k → 10%ACEC OREGON: $50k → 12%ACEC NORTH CAROLINA: $150k → 8%ACEC RHODE ISLAND: $200k → 7%ACEC GEORGIA: $50k → 13%ACEC COLORADO: $30k → 12%ACEC INDIANA: $60k → 16%ACEC ILLINOIS: $75k → 11%ACEC NEW JERSEY: $50k → 11%ACEC VIRGINIA: $45k → 9%ACEC LOUISIANA: $100k → 19%ACEC KENTUCKY: $25k → 14%ACEC ARIZONA: $19k → 11%ACEC RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $100k → 14%ACEC MICHIGAN: $18k → 16%ACEC OREGON: $25k → 12%ACEC NORTH CAROLINA: $50k → 8%ACEC ILLINOIS: $50k → 11%ACEC NEW JERSEY: $32k → 11%ACEC LOUISIANA: $10k → 19%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

WA
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
OR
IN
NJ
RI
CA
CO
KY
VA
AZ
NC
SC
DC
OK
LA
GA

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

50%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.0M · 8 repeat orgs$1.0M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +36% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.

8 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
6

Total granted

$1.0M
$495k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+6%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 35% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $510k went to new ones.

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

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

  • AR
    ACEC RESEARCH INSTITUTE
    2× · 2021–2022 · $250k · revenue +175%
  • AC
    AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF NORTH CAROLINA
    2× · 2021–2023 · $200k · revenue +88%
  • AC
    AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF LOUISIANA INC
    2× · 2021–2025 · $110k · revenue +57%

Funded once

  • AC
    AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIE
    one grant, 2024 · $180k · revenue -12%
  • AC
    American Council of Engineering Companies of California
    one grant, 2023 · $125k · revenue +5%
  • AC
    AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF MINNESOTA
    one grant, 2024 · $120k · revenue +14%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
American Council of Engineering Companies

The business association and voice of america's engineering industry, representing thousands of independent u.s. engineering companies engaged in the development of transportation, water, and other public and commercial facilities.

—
2
American Society of Civil Engineers Alabama Section

Promote Advancement of Civil Engineering Profession

—
3
American Society of Civil Engineers North Carolina Section

To advance the knowledge and practice of engineering in the public interest. To provide member societies with reliable information that affects the engineering profession. To provide a forum for engineering societies to exchange views on…

—
4
American Society of Civil Engineers National Capital Section

Advancement of Civil Engineering Profession

Science & Tech
5
American Society of Civil Engineers Georgia Section

Advance science & civil engineering profession

—
6
American Council for Construction Education Inc

The mission of ACCE is to be a leading advocate of quality construction programs and to promote, support, and accredit quality construction education programs in colleges and universities.

—
7
American Society of Civil Engineers Arizona Section

To advance the knowledge and practice of engineering in the public interest. To provide member societies with reliable information that affects the engineering profession. To provide a forum for engineering societies to exchange views on…

—
8
American Society of Civil Engineers Inc

To provide essential value to our members, their careers, our partners, and the public, asce will: facilitate the advancement of technology; encourage and provide the tools for lifelong learning; promote professionalism and the profession;…

Science & Tech
9
American Society of Civil Engineers Louisiana Section

To advance the knowledge and practice of engineering in the public interest. To provide member societies with reliable information that affects the engineering profession. To provide a forum for engineering societies to exchange views on…

—
10
American Society of Civil Engineers Nevada Section

Advance science & civil engineering profession

—
11
American Council of Engineering Companies of Co Sch and Edu Foun

To support and promote education in the field of engineering and to administer a scholarship program within the state of colorado.

Education
12
American Society of Civil Engineers Oregon Section

Promote civil engineering profession

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Council of Engineering Companies of Colorado and the most unlike its peers is North Dakota Consulting Engineers Council. 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

22 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
10/22
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

ACEC RESEARCH INSTITUTE — $250,000 · OtherACEC RESEARCH INSTITUTEAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF NORTH CAROLINA — $200,000 · OtherAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF NORTH CAROLINAAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIE — $180,000 · OtherAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIEAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF ILLINOIS — $125,000 · OtherAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF ILLINOISAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of California — $125,000 · OtherAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of CaliforniaAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF MINNESOTA — $120,000 · OtherAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF MINNESOTAAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF LOUISIANA INC — $110,000 · OtherAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF LOUISIANA INCAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of Arizona — $93,750 · OtherACECMICHIGAN — $88,000 · OtherAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of New Jersey — $81,600 · OtherAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF OREGON — $75,000 · Other+10 more — $380,058 · Other+10 moreACEC-RI AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES-RI — $200,000 · Community ImprovementACEC-RI AME…
Other$1,828,408Community Improvement$200,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetACEC RESEARCH INSTITUTE — $250,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetACEC-RI AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES-RI — $200,000 over 1y, 91% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF NORTH CAROLINA — $200,000 over 2y, 10.0% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIE — $180,000 over 1y, 24% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF ILLINOIS — $125,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of California — $125,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF MINNESOTA — $120,000 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF LOUISIANA INC — $110,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of Arizona — $93,750 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetACECMICHIGAN — $88,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of New Jersey — $81,600 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF OREGON — $75,000 over 2y, 6.5% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF INDIANA INC — $60,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COM OF GEORGIA INC — $50,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF WASHINGTON — $50,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetNORTH DAKOTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL — $50,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF VIRGINIA — $45,000 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF COLORADO — $30,058 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetTHE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF WISCONSIN INC — $30,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF OKLAHOMA — $30,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF KENTUCKY INC — $25,000 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES OF NEW YORK INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budget
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.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization American Council of Engineering Companies 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.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%your share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 22 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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 camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home
    State money flows
    the interactive map of money crossing state lines