Skip to content
Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers at a glance

· Public charity

Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers

The ASSOCIATION OF GAMING EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS (agem) is an international trade association representing manufacturers of electronic gaming devices, systems, and components for the gaming industry.

$327k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$75k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0187% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$960kEducation$597kPublic Safety & Disaster$248kRecreation & Sports$125kPhilanthropy$58kInternational$17kCommunity Improvement$8kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $297,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $326,788 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $29,288 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

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $123k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $175k
$40,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC$75,000
PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR$50,000
GLOBAL GAMING WOMEN$50,000
NATIONAL COUNCIL PROB GAMBLING$40,000
OLYMPIA COMPANIES SOUTHERN HIGHLAND$32,500
AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND$20,000
NEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING$20,000
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION$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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 94% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%NATIONAL CTR RESPONSIBLE GAMING: $40k → 10%DREXEL UNIVERSITY: $10k → 22%AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%AISES FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION: $50k → 14%AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $20k → 10%LAS VEGAS VICTIMS FUND: $50k → 13%AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%NATIONAL COUNCIL PROB GAMBLING: $65k → 14%AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $15k → 10%JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $75k → 13%AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%NATIONAL COUNCIL PROB GAMBLING: $57k → 14%AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $12k → 10%JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $60k → 13%NATIONAL COUNCIL PROB GAMBLING: $50k → 14%JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $50k → 13%GLOBAL GAMING WOMEN: $50k → 14%JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $50k → 13%NATIONAL COUNCIL PROB GAMBLING: $50k → 14%JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $50k → 13%NATIONAL COUNCIL PROB GAMBLING: $50k → 14%JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $50k → 13%GLOBAL GAMING WOMEN: $50k → 14%JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $50k → 13%NATIONAL COUNCIL PROB GAMBLING: $40k → 14%JCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $13k → 13%NATIONAL COUNCIL PROB GAMBLING: $40k → 14%GLOBAL GAMING WOMEN: $25k → 14%PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR: $50k → 13%GLOBAL GAMING WOMEN: $25k → 14%PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR: $50k → 13%GLOBAL GAMING WOMEN: $20k → 14%PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR: $50k → 13%GLOBAL GAMING WOMEN: $18k → 14%PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR: $50k → 13%PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR: $50k → 13%PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR: $50k → 13%PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR: $50k → 13%OLYMPIA COMPANIES SOUTHERN HIGHLAND: $33k → 13%PROBLEM GAMBLING CTR: $25k → 13%NEVADA STATE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $20k → 13%NEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING: $27k → 13%NEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING: $20k → 13%NEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING: $18k → 13%NEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING: $18k → 13%NEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING: $17k → 13%NEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING: $15k → 13%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

MA
NV
PA
CA
CO
NM
DC
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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 9 repeat orgs$327k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +77% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
9

Total granted

$2.0M
$220k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+77%
+26%

Still filing today

89%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $108k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthPhilanthropyInternationalPublic Safety & DisasterCommunity 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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $481k · revenue +18%
  • IP
    INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM GAMBLING CENTER
    8× · 2017–2025 · $375k · revenue +77%
  • NC
    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $362k · revenue +556%

Funded once

  • LV
    LAS VEGAS VICTIMS' FUND
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
  • IG
    INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +4%
  • IC
    International Center for Responsible Gaminggraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $40k · revenue +48%
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
The Translational Genomics Research Institute

Please see schedule o

Health
2
National Science and Technology Medals Foundation Inc

The nstmf's mission is to build inclusive stem communities across the united states. fundamental to these communities are the significant, inspirational connections we foster between the individuals who have received national recognition…

—
3
New York Genome Center Inc

Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.

Health
4
Healthy Nevada
Health
5
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education

Improve health care and population health by assessing and enhancing the quality of resident and fellow physicians' education through advancements in accreditation and education.

Education
6
Stop Predatory Gambling Foundation

We exist to reveal the truth behind commercialized gambling, to advocate for those who have suffered harm, to prevent more victims, and to champion policy reforms that stop predatory gambling.

Health
7
United States Golf Association

The united states golf association champions and advances the game of golf. it serves millions of golfers and thousands of golf courses both within the united states and around the world through programs and services that promote a…

Recreation & Sports
8
The Glaucoma Foundation Inc

The glaucoma foundation, inc. is an international not-for-profit organization dedicated to eradicating glaucoma, the leading cause of preventable blindness. the strategy to achieve this goal is two-fold: raise public awareness concerning…

Health
9
American Institute for Cancer Research

Aicr champions the latest and most authoritative scientific research from around the world on cancer prevention and survival through diet, weight and physical activity, so that we can help people make informed lifestyle choices to reduce…

Health
10
American College of Surgeons

The american college of surgeons is dedicated to improving the care of the surgical patient and to safeguarding standards of care in an optimal and ethical practice environment.

Education
11
New Mexico Chronic Disease Prevention Council

The mission of the new mexico chronic disease prevention council (cdpc) is to reduce common risk factors for the chronic diseases of arthritis, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, and osteoporosis by: -advocating for…

Health
12
Public Responsibility in Medicine & Research Inc

Prim&r advances the highest ethical standards in the conduct of biomedical, behavioral and social science research. prim&r accomplishes this mission through education, membership services, professional certification, public policy…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nevada Council On Problem Gambling; the most unlike its peers is Las Vegas Victims' Fund. 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

15 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. 15 of the 20 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
14/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING INC: $361,500 · OtherNATIONAL COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING INCIndividual grant recipient: $332,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING: $133,000 · OtherNEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLINGJCMAGA GOLF CLASSIC: $75,000 · OtherJCMAGA GOLF CLASSICLAS VEGAS VICTIMS' FUND: $50,000 · OtherINDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION: $50,000 · Other+2 more: $45,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS FOUNDATION: $480,748 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEG…AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $66,500 · EducationAMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUNDNEVADA STATE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $40,000 · EducationNEVADA STATE COLLEGE FOUNDAT…+1 more: $10,000 · EducationINTERNATIONAL PROBLEM GAMBLING CENTER: $375,000 · HealthINTERNATIONAL PROBLE…American Heart Association Inc: $50,000 · HealthAmerican Heart Assoc…GLOBAL GAMING WOMEN CHARITABLE EDUCATION: $197,500 · Public Safety & DisasterGLOBAL GA…International Center for Responsible Gaming: $40,000 · PhilanthropyOLYMPIA COMPANIES SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $32,500 · PhilanthropyDIRECT RELIEF: $8,333 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL RELIEF TEAMS: $8,333 · InternationalTHE ONESTAR FOUNDATION: $8,333 · Community Improvement
Other$1,047,000Education$597,248Health$425,000Public Safety & Disaster$197,500Philanthropy$72,500International$16,666Community Improvement$8,333

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 budgetUNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS FOUNDATION: $480,748 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetINTERNATIONAL PROBLEM GAMBLING CENTER: $375,000 over 8y, 11% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING INC: $361,500 over 8y, 3.5% of budgetGLOBAL GAMING WOMEN CHARITABLE EDUCATION: $197,500 over 7y, 11% of budgetNEVADA COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING: $133,000 over 8y, 4.5% of budgetAMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $66,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetINDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $50,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetNEVADA STATE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetDREXEL UNIVERSITY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDIRECT RELIEF: $8,333 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL RELIEF TEAMS: $8,333 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ONESTAR FOUNDATION: $8,333 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO3.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 20 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 of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers’ 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