Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

American Society for Nondestructive Testing

Asnt exists to create a safer world by promoting the profession and technologies of nondestructive testing.

$150k
Granted FY2022
7
Grants FY2022
7
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 80% of AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING’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.

02FY2022 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 7 grants below total $120,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $150,082 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $30,082 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.

$20,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$55M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY$20,000
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY$20,000
GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY$20,000
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$20,000
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY$20,000
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE$10,000
NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$10,000
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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 93% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL: $10k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO: $5k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $20k → 11%PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 16%DREXEL UNIVERSITY: $20k → 22%NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: $20k → 17%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN: $20k → 10%Texas A&M University: $20k → 13%NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 23%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $40k → 16%Missouri Univ Science Tech: $20k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $10k → 8%Brigham Young University: $20k → 8%GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $20k → 13%GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: $20k → 24%OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY: $5k → 15%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $30k → 23%NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $10k → 16%Virginia Polytechnic: $20k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $20k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY: $20k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO: $5k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $20k → 11%PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 16%NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: $5k → 17%NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 23%Michigan State Univ: $25k → 16%GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $20k → 13%GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: $10k → 24%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $20k → 23%PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 16%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 16%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE: $10k → 23%Southern Illinois-Carbond: $5k → 23%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

ID
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
IA
OH
PA
NJ
UT
MO
VA
MD
NM
AL
GA
TX

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.

63%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$450k · 10 repeat orgs$265k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +44% since the first grant, against +24% for the ones you funded once.

10 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2022, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
15

Total granted

$450k
$255k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
+24%

Still filing today

30%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
EducationScience & TechHealthOther

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

  • UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
    2× · 2019–2020 · $40k · revenue +28%
  • GS
    GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATIONINC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $30k · revenue +44%
  • NY
    New York University
    2× · 2019–2022 · $25k · revenue +51%

Funded once

  • MS
    Michigan State Univ
    one grant, 2017 · $25k
  • GI
    GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
  • PS
    PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2018 · $20k

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

04Your field
04the grantee network

6 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 6 of the 26 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
6/6
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY — $90,000 · OtherIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYSOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY- CARBONDALE — $65,000 · OtherSOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY- CARBONDALEMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY — $60,000 · OtherMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYPENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY — $50,000 · OtherPENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITYNEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY — $40,000 · OtherNEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK — $40,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARKMichigan State Univ — $25,000 · OtherGEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY — $20,000 · OtherPORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY — $20,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS — $20,000 · OtherBRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY — $20,000 · OtherTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS — $20,000 · OtherTexas A&M University-Commerce — $20,000 · OtherVIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY — $20,000 · OtherCURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI — $20,000 · Other+5 more — $45,000 · Other+5 moreUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH — $40,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF …New York University — $25,000 · EducationNew York Unive…DREXEL UNIVERSITY — $20,000 · EducationDREXEL UNIVERS…Ohio Northern University — $5,000 · EducationOhio Northern …GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATIONINC — $30,000 · Science & TechGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION — $20,000 · Health
Other$575,000Education$90,000Science & Tech$30,000Health$20,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH — $40,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATIONINC — $30,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNew York University — $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION — $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDREXEL UNIVERSITY — $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOhio Northern University — $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
  • Who funds GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATIONINC
  • Who funds New York University
  • Who funds GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION
  • Who funds DREXEL UNIVERSITY
  • Who funds Ohio Northern University

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.

Folds of Honor FoundationOK15.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Folds of Honor Foundation · American Chemical Society · Tulsa Community Foundation

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 American Society for Nondestructive Testing 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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 26 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $15k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2022, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph