Skip to content
American Council of Engineering Companies at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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 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.

Community Improvement$885kEnvironment$433kScience & Tech$390kPublic Benefit$200kEmployment$120k
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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

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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 75% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its 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
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
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
OR
IN
NJ
RI
CA
CO
KY
VA
AZ
NC
SC
DC
OK
LA
GA
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.

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +36% since the first grant, against +6% for those 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
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

  • 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%
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
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

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Council of Engineering Companies of Colorado; 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, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
11/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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
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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization American Council of Engineering Companies funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from American Council of Engineering Companies. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's 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
    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 22 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 American Council of Engineering Companies’ 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