Skip to content
Association for Computing Machinery Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Association for Computing Machinery Inc

We are an intl.

$5.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$548k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$2.4MScience & Tech$2.1MArts & Culture$68kHealth$38kYouth Development$37kCommunity Improvement$20kEmployment$18kPhilanthropy$11kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $650,540, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,986,722 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,336,182 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 $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $40k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $56k
  • $250k+1 grant · $548k
$15,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$280M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION$547,500
IEEE$55,540
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$15,000
SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$15,000
UC BERKELEY SIMONS INSTITUTE$10,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE$7,500
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 (FY21–21, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GIRLS WHO CODE INC: $6k → 17%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

NH
WA
MN
IL
WI
NY
MA
OH
PA
NJ
CA
CO
KY
NM
NC
DC
AL
GA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $2.0M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions, $229k to organizations and $1.8M to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$638k · 32% · 10 grants · 448 people

Stated purpose: SUPPORT FOR SUMMER SCHOOL AT RECSYS 2024 · SUPPORT FOR THE SORAIM WINTER SCHOOL · SUPPORT FOR ACM SUMMER SCHOOL 2025 EVENT

North America (Canada and Mexico)$637k · 32% · 168 people

Stated purpose: TRAVEL GRANTS TO ATTEND ACM CONFERENCE, AWARDS

East Asia and the Pacific$557k · 28% · 2 grants · 506 people

Stated purpose: STUDENT TRAVEL GRANT TO ATTEND AINTEC 2024 CONFERENCE · STUDENT TRAVEL GRANT FOR INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM OF EDA · TRAVEL GRANTS TO ATTEND ACM CONFERENCE, AWARDS

South Asia$75k · 4% · 1 grant · 76 people

Stated purpose: TRAVEL GRANTS FOR COMSNETS 2025 CONFERENCE · TRAVEL GRANTS TO ATTEND ACM CONFERENCE, AWARDS

South America$65k · 3% · 75 people

Stated purpose: TRAVEL GRANTS TO ATTEND ACM CONFERENCE, AWARDS

Middle East and North Africa$28k · 1% · 23 people

Stated purpose: TRAVEL GRANTS TO ATTEND ACM CONFERENCE, AWARDS

Sub-Saharan Africa$10k · 0% · 14 people

Stated purpose: TRAVEL GRANTS TO ATTEND ACM CONFERENCE, AWARDS

Central America and the Caribbean$3k · 0% · 2 people

Stated purpose: TRAVEL GRANTS TO ATTEND ACM CONFERENCE, AWARDS

Russia and Neighboring States$2k · 0% · 3 people

Stated purpose: TRAVEL GRANTS TO ATTEND ACM CONFERENCE, AWARDS

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.6M · 8 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +79% since the first grant, against +5% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
30

Total granted

$2.6M
$1.9M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+79%
+5%

Still filing today

75%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $63k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationScience & TechPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • CS
    COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION LLC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $2.1M · revenue +235%
  • TC
    THE COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION INC
    2× · 2017–2020 · $381k · revenue +146%
  • NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2020–2022 · $25k · revenue +63%

Funded once

  • PL
    PUTATIONALCOM LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $1.0M
  • TM
    THE MAXWELLHANRAHAN FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $500k · revenue +332%
  • AB
    ANITA BORG INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY
    one grant, 2020 · $35k · revenue +24%
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
Boston Architectural College

The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.

—
2
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…

Science & Tech
3
Aacsb International - the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

Aacsb international provides quality assurance of business school programs, the latest in business education intelligence, thought leadership, and learning and development services.

Education
4
The George Washington University

The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…

Education
5
Trustees of Boston University

Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…

—
6
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
7
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
8
University of Virginia Investment Management Company

The university of virginia investment management company (uvimco) is organized to invest funds on behalf of the rector and visitors of the university of virginia (the university or uva) and university-associated organizations (uaos).

Education
9
United States Naval Institute

Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.

—
10
Associated Universities Inc

Associated universities inc (aui) collaborates with the scientific community and research sponsors to plan, build, and operate cutting-edge facilities. we cultivate excellence, deliver value, enhance education, and engage the public.

Science & Tech
11
President and Fellows of Harvard College

Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.

Education
12
National Association of College and University Attorneys

To advance the practice of higher education attorneys for the benefit of the institutions they serve.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Anita Borg Institute for Technology; the most unlike its peers is The Maxwellhanrahan Foundation. 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

27 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. 27 of the 43 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
27/27
Grantees still filing
17/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION LLC: $2,090,635 · EducationCOMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION LLC+15 more: $314,040 · Education+15 morePUTATIONALCOM LLC: $1,000,000 · OtherPUTATIONALCOM LLCTHE COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION INC: $380,500 · OtherTHE COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION INCBOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (MERCED): $62,091 · Other+14 more: $184,563 · Other+14 moreTHE MAXWELLHANRAHAN FOUNDATION: $500,000 · PhilanthropyTHE MAXWELLHA…Silicon Valley Community Foundation: $27,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $11,000 · PhilanthropyANITA BORG INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY: $35,000 · Science & TechSOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS: $12,250 · Science & TechAssociation for the Advancement of Artificial Inte: $8,000 · Science & TechNATIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: $25,000 · Youth DevelopmentNY TECH ALLIANCE INC: $10,000 · Community ImprovementVerified VotingOrg Inc: $10,000 · Public BenefitGIRLS WHO CODE INC: $5,500 · Human Services
Education$2,404,675Other$1,627,154Philanthropy$538,000Science & Tech$55,250Youth Development$25,000Community Improvement$10,000Public Benefit$10,000Human Services$5,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION LLC: $2,090,635 over 6y, 8.4% of budgetTHE MAXWELLHANRAHAN FOUNDATION: $500,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION INC: $380,500 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetANITA BORG INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY: $35,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $35,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTrustees of Dartmouth College: $35,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES & SCHOOLS USA FOUNDATION INC: $27,500 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetSilicon Valley Community Foundation: $27,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBLACK IN AI: $15,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HOWARD UNIVERSITY: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCornell University: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS: $12,250 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS: $11,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetNY TECH ALLIANCE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetVerified VotingOrg Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLACK GIRLS CODE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAssociation for the Advancement of Artificial Inte: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBLUEGRASS COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $6,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetGIRLS WHO CODE INC: $5,500 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.

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…Silicon Valley Commun…Folds of Honor Founda…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Carnegie Mellon UniversityPA13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Carnegie Mellon University · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Folds of Honor Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Association for Computing Machinery Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Association for Computing Machinery Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
  • Northeastern University: 7% of income from government
  • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
3report 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 43 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 Association for Computing Machinery’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