Skip to content
Forging Industry Educational and Research Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Forging Industry Educational and Research Foundation

To support and enhance the forging industry through education, research and development, and dissemination of information.

$397k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$62k
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 2025.

Science & Tech$768kEducation$517kCommunity Improvement$10k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $203,339, the rows itemized in this filing. The $396,800 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $193,461 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–50k2 grants · $84k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $120k
$57,652
Median grant
4
States reached
$3.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY$62,064
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY$57,652
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA$42,282
CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY$41,341
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%. 77% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: $62k → 11%UNIVERISTY OF PITTSBURGH: $60k → 11%PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $9k → 16%OAKLAND UNIVERSITY: $6k → 8%MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $58k → 14%LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $6k → 16%MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $6k → 17%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $34k → 8%GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: $16k → 24%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $5k → 15%CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY: $41k → 17%Ohio University: $16k → 22%FRIENDS OF MCHENRY COUNTY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $6k → 6%KISHWAUKEE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $6k → 13%LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: $21k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $48k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $841 → 16%North Carolina State University: $32k → 8%GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: $8k → 24%CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $6k → 17%OHIO UNIVERSITY: $9k → 22%LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: $17k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $29k → 11%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $29k → 8%GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: $6k → 24%CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY: $6k → 17%UNIVERISTY OF PITTSBURGH: $15k → 11%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $29k → 8%CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $49k → 17%UNIVERISTY OF PITTSBURGH: $13k → 11%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $27k → 8%CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY: $33k → 17%CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY: $44k → 11%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $21k → 8%CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $21k → 17%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $19k → 8%Case Western Reserve University: $21k → 17%CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY: $16k → 17%CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY: $7k → 17%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
OH
PA
NC
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 11 repeat orgs$204k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +41% since the first grant, against +20% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
13

Total granted

$1.1M
$146k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+41%
+20%

Still filing today

55%
54%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $58k 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
EducationScience & 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

  • UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
    7× · 2018–2024 · $263k · revenue +40%
  • MU
    Marquette University
    5× · 2017–2023 · $105k · revenue +46%
  • LU
    LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2023–2025 · $100k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • CM
    Carnegie Mellon University
    one grant, 2024 · $44k · revenue +25%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
    one grant, 2023 · $21k
  • CS
    COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES
    one grant, 2023 · $14k
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
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
2
Trustees of Clark University

Clark university's mission is to educate undergraduate and graduate students to be imaginative and contributing citizens of the world, and to advance the frontiers of knowledge and understanding through rigorous scholarship and creative…

Education
3
University of Miami

See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.

Education
4
Trustees of Dartmouth College

Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.

Education
5
Endicott College

Endicott college offers students a vibrant academic environment that remains true to its founding principle of integrating professional and liberal arts with experiential learning. for more information see schedule o.

Education
6
Lewis & Clark College

Lewis & clark is a premier private higher education institution offering an exceptional education in an inclusive environment. by fostering critical thinking, innovation, creativity, civic engagement, and leadership, both inside and…

Education
7
Drexel University

Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…

Education
8
John Carroll University

As a jesuit catholic university committed to academic rigor, inclusive excellence, and care for the whole person, john carroll university inspires individuals of intellect and character to learn, lead and serve in the community and…

Education
9
William Marsh Rice University

As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…

Education
10
University Foundation
—
11
University of Chicago

The mission of the university of chicago has been to sustain at the highest level of excellence, the communication of knowledge, the creation of knowledge and the fostering of a dynamic community of scholars and students.

Education
12
St Marys University of Minnesota

Enriched by the lasallian catholic heritage, saint mary's university of minnesota awakens, nurtures, and empowers learners to ethical lives of service and leadership.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Carnegie Mellon University; the most unlike its peers is Ohio State University Research Foundation. 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

14 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. 14 of the 25 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
11/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $263,183 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGHMarquette University: $105,218 · EducationMarquette UniversityLEHIGH UNIVERSITY: $99,526 · EducationLEHIGH UNIVERSITYCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $90,538 · EducationCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITYASM MATERIALS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $80,000 · EducationASM MATERIALS EDUCATION FOUNDATION+5 more: $30,091 · EducationNC STATE UNIVERSITY: $190,374 · OtherNC STATE UNIVERSITYCleveland State University: $102,986 · OtherCleveland State UniversityUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: $93,434 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDAMichigan Tech University: $57,652 · OtherMichigan Tech UniversityCarnegie Mellon University: $44,241 · OtherCarnegie Mellon UniversityOhio University: $25,647 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO: $21,000 · Other+7 more: $60,430 · Other+7 moreGEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATIONINC: $29,966 · Science & Tech
Education$668,556Other$595,764Science & Tech$29,966

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $263,183 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetMarquette University: $105,218 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetLEHIGH UNIVERSITY: $99,526 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $90,538 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetASM MATERIALS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $80,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetCarnegie Mellon University: $44,241 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SERVICE FOUNDATIONINC: $29,966 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetIllinois Institute of Technology: $6,091 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetKISHWAUKEE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF MCHENRY COUNTY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $5,280 over 1y, 2.2% 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.

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.

Vanderbilt UniversityAmerican Chemical Soc…Cornell UniversityUniversity of Pittsbu…The Trustees of Colum…National Collegiate A…Folds of Honor Founda…American Heart Associ…Tulsa Community Found…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…
Vanderbilt UniversityTN15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanderbilt University · American Chemical Society · Cornell University · University of Pittsburgh · The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York · National Collegiate Athletic Association · Folds of Honor Foundation · American Heart Association Inc · Tulsa Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Forging Industry Educational and Research Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Forging Industry Educational and Research Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    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 25 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 Forging Industry Educational and Research’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