Skip to content

· 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 it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Science & Tech$440kEducation$275k
02FY2022 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $120,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $150,082 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $30,082 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.
$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
NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$10,000
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE$10,000
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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 93% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its 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
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

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

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +44% since the first grant, against +24% for those 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
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

  • 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
  • CO
    CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
    one grant, 2017 · $20k
  • PS
    PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
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
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 26 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
6/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 · OtherCURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: $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 · OtherGEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $20,000 · OtherTexas A&M University-Commerce: $20,000 · OtherVIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY: $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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's 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 budgetDREXEL UNIVERSITY: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOhio Northern University: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATIONINC ↗
  • Who funds New York University ↗
  • Who funds DREXEL UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds Ohio Northern University ↗

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.

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

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 American Society for Nondestructive Testing funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from American Society for Nondestructive Testing. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's 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, 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 26 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 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

    Play a game based on American Society for Nondestructive Testing’s filings →

    More from the funding graph