Skip to content
Economic Development Growth Enterprises Corporation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Economic Development Growth Enterprises Corporation

Strengthen local business, attract new industries and talent, and create vibrant communities to grow the mohawk valley economy.

$189k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
—
States reached
$96k
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 2024.

Community Improvement$1.6MEmployment$1.1MFood & Nutrition$79kEnvironment$30k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $175k
$79,000
Median grant
—
States reached
$50M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GRIFFISS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION$96,152
NEW VENTURE ADVISORS LLC$79,000
ANDRO COMPUTATIONAL SOLUTIONS LLC$11,318
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 (FY17–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%WILSON'S NURSERY OF WATERVILLE INC: $41k → 16%NP ENVIRONMENTAL LLC: $30k → 16%PARIS COMPRESSION MOLDING LLC: $13k → 16%DELTA HARDWOOD FLOORING: $67k → 16%SR SLOAN INC: $104k → 16%RIVERHAWK COMPANY: $98k → 16%CHARLES T SITRIN HEALTHCARE INC: $40k → 16%AUDIOPTIX LLC: $35k → 16%AUDIOPTIX LLC: $7k → 16%ADIRONDACK BARREL COOPERAGE LLC: $41k → 16%METAL PARTS MANUFACTURING INC: $35k → 16%PATLA ENTERPRISES INC: $50k → 16%SQUARE ONE COATING SYSTEMS LLC: $84k → 16%SQUARE ONE COATING SYSTEMS LLC: $50k → 16%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.
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.
$1.4M · 8 repeat orgs$1.4M to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
29

Total granted

$1.4M
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-21%
+21%

Still filing today

13%
3%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $79k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementHealthOther
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

  • GL
    GRIFFISS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $711k · revenue -21%
  • SO
    SQUARE ONE COATING SYSTEMS
    3× · 2017–2022 · $238k
  • SS
    SR SLOAN INC
    2× · 2017–2021 · $208k

Funded once

  • ML
    MOHAWK LTD
    one grant, 2023 · $150k
  • RC
    RIVERHAWK COMPANY
    one grant, 2019 · $98k
  • NP
    NORTEK POWDER COATING LLC
    one grant, 2022 · $95k
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

2 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.

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 2024, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 2 of the 38 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)
2/2
Grantees still filing
1/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SQUARE ONE COATING SYSTEMS: $238,000 · OtherSQUARE ONE COATING SYSTEMSSR SLOAN INC: $208,000 · OtherSR SLOAN INCMOHAWK LTD: $150,000 · OtherMOHAWK LTDRIVERHAWK COMPANY: $98,000 · OtherNORTEK POWDER COATING LLC: $95,000 · OtherPATLA ENTERPRISES INC: $95,000 · OtherINTINO ENTERPRISE LLC: $95,000 · OtherADIRONDACK SHEET METAL: $95,000 · OtherR-TRONICS INC: $85,000 · OtherMETAL LOGIX DESIGN AND FABRICATION INC: $85,000 · OtherNEW VENTURE ADVISORS LLC: $79,000 · Other+25 more: $797,188 · Other+25 moreGRIFFISS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $710,533 · Community ImprovementGRIFFISS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT C…CHARLES T SITRIN HEALTH CARE CENTERINC: $40,250 · Health
Other$2,120,188Community Improvement$710,533Health$40,250

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGRIFFISS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $710,533 over 2y, 9.5% of budgetCHARLES T SITRIN HEALTH CARE CENTERINC: $40,250 over 1y, 0.2% 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 GRIFFISS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds CHARLES T SITRIN HEALTH CARE CENTERINC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Economic Development Growth Enterprises Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Economic Development Growth Enterprises Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–50%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 38 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Economic Development Growth Enterprises’ 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