Skip to content
Foodservice Packaging Institute Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Foodservice Packaging Institute Inc

To expand acceptance and promote the benefits of foodservice packaging; protect manufacturing of foodservice packaging from unwarranted intrusion by government.

$100k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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.

Environment$980kCommunity Improvement$50kPublic Benefit$49kHousing & Shelter$28k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $50,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $99,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $49,500 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.
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Conigliaro Industries Inc$50,000
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 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 47% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%Conigliaro Industries Inc: $50k → 8%CITY OF COON RAPIDS: $50k → 7%FAYETTE COUNTY PA: $49k → 17%KEEP CALIFORNIA BEAUTIFUL: $13k → 18%MADISON COUNTY NY: $43k → 11%OSTEGO COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT: $50k → 13%CITY OF AUSTIN - AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY: $45k → 10%THE FOAM RECYCLER: $39k → 10%UNIVERSITY LUTHERAN CHURCH AND STUDENT CENTER: $23k → 13%COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPT: $50k → 10%ST LUCIE COUNTY BALING AND RECYCLING FACILITY: $50k → 13%OUTGAMIE COUNTY: $50k → 7%AGILYX CORPORATION: $50k → 8%KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL: $25k → 9%BINGHAMPTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $50k → 17%MECLENBERG COUNTY GOVERNMENT: $50k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON: $10k → 12%HENDERSONVILLE NC: $40k → 12%ATLANTA CHARM: $41k → 13%GEAUGA-TRUMBULL: $50k → 16%VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: $49k → 14%THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP: $25k → 4%SOUTH SUBURBAN COLLEGE: $50k → 14%THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP: $25k → 4%THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP: $25k → 4%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
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
OH
PA
CT
CA
WV
VA
NM
TN
NC
OK
GA
TX
FL
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 field
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 26 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)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Conigliaro Industries Inc: $50,000 · OtherConigliaro Industries IncSOUTH SUBURBAN COLLEGE: $50,000 · OtherSOUTH SUBURBAN COLLEGEIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientAGILYX CORPORATION: $50,000 · OtherAGILYX CORPORATIONIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCITY OF COON RAPIDS: $50,000 · OtherCITY OF COON RAPIDSSt Lucie County: $50,000 · OtherSt Lucie CountyOSTEGO COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT: $50,000 · OtherOSTEGO COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENTCOLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF CO: $50,000 · OtherCOLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COCITY OF HIGH POINT: $49,250 · OtherCITY OF HIGH POINTVILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: $49,029 · OtherVILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTIndividual grant recipient: $49,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCITY OF AUSTIN - AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY: $45,000 · OtherMADISON COUNTY: $42,925 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $40,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $38,800 · OtherRAY LOCATO RECYCLING CENTER: $29,450 · Other+2 more: $32,642 · OtherTHE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP INC: $75,000 · EnvironmentTHE RECYCLING P…LIVE-THRIVE INC: $41,000 · EnvironmentLIVE-THRIVE INCKEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC: $25,000 · EnvironmentKEEP AMERICA BE…Keep California Beautiful Inc: $12,500 · EnvironmentKeep California…Binghampton Development Corporation: $50,000 · Community ImprovementTiny House Community Development Inc: $28,001 · Housing & Shelter
Other$876,096Environment$153,500Community Improvement$50,000Housing & Shelter$28,001

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP INC: $75,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetBinghampton Development Corporation: $50,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetLIVE-THRIVE INC: $41,000 over 1y, 8.9% of budgetTiny House Community Development Inc: $28,001 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetKEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetKeep California Beautiful Inc: $12,500 over 1y, 16% 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 THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
  • Who funds Binghampton Development Corporation ↗
  • Who funds LIVE-THRIVE INC ↗
  • Who funds Tiny House Community Development Inc ↗
  • Who funds KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC ↗
  • Who funds Keep California Beautiful Inc ↗

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.

Charities Aid Foundat…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Charities Aid Foundation AmericaVA8.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Charities Aid Foundation America · 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 Foodservice Packaging Institute Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Foodservice Packaging Institute Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–10%
    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 26 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 Foodservice Packaging Institute’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