Skip to content
Elevate Ventures Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Elevate Ventures Inc

Elevate Ventures' mission is growing the state's economy, driving economic development, helping businesses launch, grow and locate in the State of Indiana.

$904k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$330k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Science & Tech$3.0MEducation$1.3MCommunity Improvement$882kHealth$525kArts & Culture$248kEmployment$200kEnvironment$200kCrime & Legal$100kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $51k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $509k
  • $250k+1 grant · $330k
$66,096
Median grant
3
States reached
$28M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership Inc$329,849
Circular$248,019
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology$145,150
Indiana University Research$66,096
Amplified Sciences Inc$50,000
Render PBC$30,875
Purdue University$19,882
University of Evansville$8,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 80% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Carbon Solutions LLC: $150k → 14%gener8tor: $67k → 10%Wavelogix Inc: $50k → 5%Next Level Manufacturing Institute LLC: $440k → 5%Trine University Inc: $58k → 9%COLUMBUS AREA CHAMBER FOUNDATION: $65k → 13%R Kumar dba Ateios: $50k → 13%Huntington County Community Foundation: $60k → 13%Tessellated Inc: $100k → 13%Neurodon LLC: $50k → 15%Air Buoyant: $50k → 15%Circular: $248k → 15%Teichos Laboratories LLC: $100k → 16%Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology: $145k → 19%Ball State University: $50k → 19%Analyswift LLC: $150k → 19%Taylor University: $54k → 19%Transfoam LLC: $50k → 7%Levisonics Inc: $50k → 23%Wolf Technical Services Inc: $50k → 5%Ninetwelve Institute: $273k → 5%Indiana Institute of Technology Inc: $50k → 12%AirBuoyant LLC: $50k → 15%Opalgenix Inc: $50k → 16%Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology: $50k → 19%Purdue Research Foundation: $112k → 19%Wik Devices LLC: $50k → 5%Opalgenix Inc: $50k → 16%Rose Hulman Institute of Technology: $50k → 19%Purdue Research Foundation: $71k → 19%Cascade Metrix LLC: $50k → 5%Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership Inc: $330k → 12%Opalgenix Inc: $50k → 16%Dencoda LLC: $50k → 19%Teichos Laboratories LLC: $50k → 16%M3SIM LLC: $50k → 19%Monon Bioventures LLC: $50k → 16%Indiana University: $57k → 18%HySonic Technologies: $50k → 19%Indiana University Research: $99k → 18%KOVINA THERAPEUTICS INC: $150k → 16%University of Notre Dame RSPA: $103k → 13%Career Accelerator Fund Corporation: $200k → 16%University of Notre Dame du Lac: $69k → 13%Ivy Tech: $51k → 16%Purdue University: $104k → 19%Tayco Brace Inc: $75k → 13%Compact Medical Inc: $100k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
WI
MI
IN
KY
VA
SC
LA
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.

31%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.9M · 14 repeat orgs$4.3M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +28% since the first grant, against +25% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
67

Total granted

$1.9M
$3.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+25%

Still filing today

36%
16%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 27% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $659k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationCommunity ImprovementInternationalScience & TechOther
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

  • RI
    Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
    4× · 2020–2024 · $253k · revenue +63%
  • Purdue Research Foundation
    3× · 2020–2023 · $227k · revenue +28%
  • DM
    Dimension Mill INC
    3× · 2020–2023 · $72k · revenue +185%

Funded once

  • NL
    Next Level Manufacturing Institute LLC
    one grant, 2021 · $440k
  • NI
    NINETWELVE INSTITUTE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $273k · revenue +188%
  • CA
    CAREER ACCELERATOR FUND CORPORATION
    one grant, 2021 · $200k
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
DePauw University

Depauw university develops leaders the world needs through an uncommon commitment to the liberal arts. depauw's diverse and inclusive learning and living experience, distinctive in its rigorous intellectual engagement and its global and…

Education
2
Indiana University Foundation

The Indiana University Foundation (IUF) maximizes private philanthropic support for Indiana University by fostering lifelong relationships with key stakeholders and providing advancement leadership and fundraising services for (Continued…

Education
3
Vanderbilt University

See Disclosure Above.

Education
4
Indiana University Health Care Associates Inc

To deliver preeminent medical care and service to our patients and communities through outstanding and innovative medical leadership and practice, while participating in and supporting excellence in education and research. We achieve this…

Health
5
Tiffin University

Educate students by linking knowledge to professional practice.

Education
6
Illinois Institute of Technology

To provide distinctive and relevant education in an environment of scientific, technological, and professional knowledge creation and innovation.

Education
7
University Family Physicians Inc

Engage actively and continuously in medical research, education and training in the practice of medicine in conjunction with the department of family medicine of the indiana university school of medicine and indiana university…

—
8
Rochester Institute of Technology

Rochester institute of technology (rit) shapes the future and improves the world through creativity and innovation. as an engaged, intellectually curious, and socially conscious community, rit leverages the power of technology, the arts,…

Education
9
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
10
Indiana University Health Foundation Inc

Indiana university health foundation leverages the power of philanthropy to support the iu health goal of making indiana one of the healthiest states in the nation.

Health
11
Indiana University Health Frankfort Inc

Lead the transformation of healthcare through quality, innovation & education, and make Indiana one of the nation's healthiest states.

Health
12
Northwestern University

Northwestern is committed to excellent teaching, innovative research and the personal and intellectual growth of its students in a diverse academic community.

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Indiana Institute of Technology Inc; the most unlike its peers is Access Ventures Inc. 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

21 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. 21 of the 88 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)
20/21
Grantees still filing
16/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Next Level Manufacturing Institute LLC: $440,000 · OtherNext Level Manufacturing Institute LLCIndiana University School of Medicine: $332,040 · OtherIndiana University School of MedicineNORTHEAST INDIANA REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP INC: $329,849 · OtherNORTHEAST INDIANA REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP INCRose-Hulman Institute of Technology: $253,150 · OtherCIRCULAR: $248,019 · OtherCAREER ACCELERATOR FUND CORPORATION: $200,000 · Other+66 more: $3,452,769 · Other+66 moreUniversity of Notre Dame du Lac: $243,096 · EducationUniversity of N…Purdue Research Foundation: $227,000 · EducationPurdue Research…Indiana University Research & Technology Corporation: $71,000 · EducationIndiana Univers…Trine University: $58,000 · EducationTrine Universit…UNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE: $58,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF E…Taylor University: $54,000 · EducationTaylor Universi…Butler University: $50,000 · EducationButler Universi…INDIANA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC: $50,000 · EducationINDIANA INSTITU…University of Indianapolis: $50,000 · EducationUniversity of I…+1 more: $10,000 · EducationNINETWELVE INSTITUTE INC: $273,000 · Science & TechDimension Mill INC: $71,500 · Community ImprovementACCESS VENTURES INC: $20,000 · Community ImprovementCENTRAL INDIANA CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP INC: $8,000 · Community ImprovementHUNTINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY FDTN INC: $60,436 · PhilanthropyJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF NORTHERN IN INC: $6,000 · International
Other$5,255,827Education$871,096Science & Tech$273,000Community Improvement$99,500Philanthropy$60,436International$6,000

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 budgetNORTHEAST INDIANA REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP INC: $329,849 over 1y, 12% of budgetNINETWELVE INSTITUTE INC: $273,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetRose-Hulman Institute of Technology: $253,150 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetUniversity of Notre Dame du Lac: $243,096 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPurdue Research Foundation: $227,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetDimension Mill INC: $71,500 over 3y, 5.0% of budgetIndiana University Research & Technology Corporation: $71,000 over 2y, 8.7% of budgetCOLUMBUS AREA CHAMBER FOUNDATION INC: $65,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetHUNTINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY FDTN INC: $60,436 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetTrine University: $58,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE: $58,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTaylor University: $54,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetButler University: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINDIANA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Indianapolis: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetACCESS VENTURES INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetIVY TECH FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTRAL INDIANA CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetIndiana Restaurant & Lodging Association: $8,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF NORTHERN IN INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 NORTHEAST INDIANA REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
  • Who funds NINETWELVE INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology ↗
  • Who funds University of Notre Dame du Lac ↗
  • Who funds Purdue Research Foundation ↗
  • Who funds CAREER ACCELERATOR FUND CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds Dimension Mill INC ↗
  • Who funds Indiana University Research & Technology Corporation ↗
  • Who funds COLUMBUS AREA CHAMBER FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds HUNTINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY FDTN INC ↗
  • Who funds Trine University ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE ↗
  • Who funds Taylor 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

University of Notre D…
University of Notre Dame du LacIN12.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: University of Notre Dame du Lac

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 Elevate Ventures Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Elevate Ventures Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    4report 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, FY20–25
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Elevate Ventures Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Elevate Ventures Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 88 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 Elevate Ventures’ 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