Skip to content
Fmi Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Fmi Foundation

FMI FOUNDATION (the foundation) provides funds to help support the food industry's important food safety, health and nutrition programs.

$165k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$35k
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.

Food & Nutrition$1.0MEmployment$100kHealth$20k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $120,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $165,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $45,000 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.
$25,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FOOD MARKETPLACE INC$35,000
PARTNERSHIP FOR FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION$25,000
COMMON THREADS$25,000
CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY$20,000
FOUNDATION FOR FOOD INTEGRITY$15,000
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 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 43% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE RESEARCH OFFICE: $17k → 10%Common Threads: $25k → 10%PARTNERSHIP FOR A HEALTHIER AMERICA: $25k → 14%INTERNATIONAL FOOD PROTECTION TRAINING: $25k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 16%Center for Food Integrity: $25k → 8%UNITED EGG PRODUCERS INC: $20k → 13%JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT USA: $50k → 9%INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHONOLOGIST: $25k → 14%Partnership for Food Safety Education: $45k → 7%COMMON THREADS: $25k → 10%Partnership for a Healthier America: $15k → 14%International Food Protection Training: $25k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $15k → 16%FOUNDATION FOR FOOD INTEGRITY INC: $25k → 8%JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT USA: $50k → 9%INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS: $25k → 14%FOOD MARKETPLACE INC: $45k → 7%COMMON THREADS: $25k → 10%INTERNATIONAL FOOD PROTECTION TRAINING: $25k → 14%CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY: $20k → 8%Institute of Food Technologists: $25k → 14%FOOD MARKETPLACE INC: $35k → 7%COMMON THREADS: $25k → 10%INTERNATIONAL FOOD PROTECTION TRANING INSTITUTE: $25k → 14%CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY: $20k → 8%FOOD MARKETPLACE INC: $35k → 7%COMMON THREADS: $25k → 10%INTERNATIONAL FOOD PROTECTION TRAINING: $25k → 14%CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY: $20k → 8%Food Marketplace Inc: $35k → 7%COMMON THREADS: $25k → 10%FOUNDATION FOR FOOD INTEGRITY: $15k → 8%FOOD MARKETPLACE INC: $35k → 7%COMMON THREADS: $25k → 10%PARTNERSHIP FOR FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION: $28k → 7%FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE: $25k → 7%PARTNERSHIP FOR FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION: $25k → 7%PARTNERSHIP FOR FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION: $25k → 7%PARTNERSHIP FOR FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION: $25k → 7%PARTNERSHIP FOR FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION: $25k → 7%PARTNERSHIP FOR FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION: $25k → 7%FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE: $25k → 7%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

IL
MI
CO
NE
MO
VA
DE
DC
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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 10 repeat orgs$57k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
3

Total granted

$1.1M
$57k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+10%
+37%

Still filing today

90%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
Food & NutritionYouth DevelopmentArts & CulturePhilanthropyOther
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

  • FM
    FOOD MARKETPLACE INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $235k · revenue +66%
  • CT
    COMMON THREADS
    7× · 2017–2024 · $175k · revenue +12%
  • JA
    JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT USA
    2× · 2022–2023 · $100k · revenue +101%

Funded once

  • UE
    UNITED EGG PRODUCERS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $20k
  • BO
    BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA
    one grant, 2017 · $20k
  • UNIVERSITY OF DELAWAREgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $17k · revenue +37%
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 Food Alliance

Food alliance works at the juncture of science, business and values to define and promote sustainability in agriculture and the food industry, and to ensure safe and fair working conditions, humane treatment of animals, and careful…

Arts & Culture
2
International Food Information Council

To effectively communicate science based information on food safety, nutrition, and health for the public good.

Arts & Culture
3
International Association for Food Protection

To provide food safety professionals worldwide with a forum to exchange information on protecting the food supply.

—
4
Animal Agriculture Alliance

The animal agriculture alliance is a nonprofit organization that helps bridge the communication gap between farm and fork. we connect food industry stakeholders, engage food chain influencers and promote consumer choice by helping key…

Food & Nutrition
5
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research

Foundation for food and agriculture research connects funders, researchers and farmers through public-private partnerships to support audacious research addressing the biggest food and agriculture challenges.

Food & Nutrition
6
International Foodservice Manufacturers Association

To empower, nurture, and connect the food away from home (fafh) ecosystem so it may thrive and responsibly meet consumer needs. to champion an inclusive fafh ecosystem that collaborates to build innovative solutions that advance the…

—
7
Partners in Food Solutions

Improve the food value chain in developing countries by mobilizing corporate volunteers to share knowledge and expertise with small and growing food processors.

International
8
Food Animal Concerns Trust (Fact Inc)

Food animal concerns trust (fact) promotes the safe and humane production of meat, milk, and eggs. fact envisions that all food-producing animals be raised in a healthy and humane manner so that everyone will have access to safe and…

Animals
9
Equitable Food Initiative

EFIs mission is to transform the produce industry and the lives of farmworkers by facilitating collaboration among workers, agricultural employers, retail buyers and consumer advocates.

Human Services
10
Food Action

Our mission is to educate, organize and advocate for food and farming systems to become economically prosperous, ecologically sound and socially equitable.

—
11
Center for Science in the Public Interest

The center for science in the public interest is america's food and health watchdog. cspi envisions a healthy population with reduced impact and burden of preventable diseases and an equitable food system that makes healthy, sustainable…

Food & Nutrition
12
Eat Real Certified Inc

We empower food service programs and school districts to make food delicious, nourishing, and responsible through our evidence-based certification program. We provide education and support that inspires students, schools, and communities…

Public Benefit
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Institute of Food Technologists; the most unlike its peers is University of Delaware. 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

10 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. 10 of the 13 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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FOOD MARKETPLACE INC: $235,000 · OtherFOOD MARKETPLACE INCTHE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY INC: $85,000 · OtherTHE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY INCINSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS: $75,000 · OtherINSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTSMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $35,000 · OtherMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYUNITED EGG PRODUCERS INC: $20,000 · OtherBOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: $20,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: $16,667 · OtherPartnership for Food Safety Education Inc: $198,000 · Food & NutritionPartnership for Food Safety Edu…GLOBAL FOOD PROTECTION INSTITUTE: $125,000 · Food & NutritionGLOBAL FOOD PROTECTION INSTITUT…COMMON THREADS: $175,000 · Arts & CultureCOMMON THREADSJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT USA: $100,000 · Youth DevelopmentJUNIOR ACHIEV…Partnership for a Healthier America Inc: $40,000 · Youth DevelopmentPartnership f…FOUNDATION FOR FOOD INTEGRITY INC: $40,000 · Philanthropy
Other$486,667Food & Nutrition$323,000Arts & Culture$175,000Youth Development$140,000Philanthropy$40,000

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 budgetFOOD MARKETPLACE INC: $235,000 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetPartnership for Food Safety Education Inc: $198,000 over 7y, 12% of budgetCOMMON THREADS: $175,000 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetGLOBAL FOOD PROTECTION INSTITUTE: $125,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT USA: $100,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY INC: $85,000 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetINSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS: $75,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetPartnership for a Healthier America Inc: $40,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR FOOD INTEGRITY INC: $40,000 over 2y, 22% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: $16,667 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.

National Philanthropi…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA8.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Fmi Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Fmi Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 30%
  • University of Delaware: 30% of 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 · 0–60%
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 13 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 Fmi’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