Skip to content
Foundry Educational Foundation Dba Fef at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Foundry Educational Foundation Dba Fef

Foundry educational foundation strenghtens the metal casting industry by supporting unique partnerships among students, educators, and industry, helping today's students become tomorrow's leaders.

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
15
Grants FY2025still arriving
11
States reached
$67k
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.

Education$1.4MEmployment$71kScience & Tech$19kHousing & Shelter$8k
02FY2025 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 15 grants below total $211,570, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,133,591 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $922,021 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

  • Under $10k10 grants · $82k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $62k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $67k
$9,403
Median grant
11
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville$67,146
Georgia Southern University$22,681
MICHIGAN TECH$14,146
Univ of Alabama-Birmingham$13,208
Tech Inst of Saltillo$12,318
California State Polytechnic$9,527
Kent State University$9,517
UNIV OF WISCONSIN- MILWAUKEE$9,403
University of Northern Iowa$8,668
The Ohio State University$8,225
VIRGINIA TECH FOUNDATION$8,136
MISSOURI S&T$7,995
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIV$7,428
pittsburg state university$7,312
purdue university$5,860
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 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 89% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Arizona State University: $12k → 11%California State Polytechnic: $19k → 14%WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIV: $11k → 12%MICHIGAN TECH: $22k → 14%pittsburg state university: $19k → 18%MISSOURI S&T: $11k → 16%UW MADISON FOUNDATION: $50k → 10%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $92k → 13%UNIV OF WISCONSIN- MILWAUKEE: $31k → 17%Georgia Southern University: $23k → 24%Trine University: $10k → 9%Kent State University: $10k → 12%Virginia Tech: $11k → 21%California State Polytechnic: $13k → 14%MICHIGAN TECH: $20k → 14%pittsburg state university: $14k → 18%UW MADISON: $37k → 10%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $71k → 13%UNIV OF WISCONSIN- MILWAUKEE: $14k → 17%Georgia Southern University: $22k → 24%Trine University: $9k → 9%Kent State University: $9k → 12%Virginia Tech: $11k → 21%California State Polytechnic: $13k → 14%MICHIGAN TECH: $16k → 14%pittsburg state university: $11k → 18%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $68k → 13%UNIV OF WISCONSIN- MILWAUKEE: $12k → 17%Virginia Tech: $10k → 21%California State Polytechnic: $12k → 14%MICHIGAN TECH: $14k → 14%pittsburg state university: $9k → 18%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $67k → 13%UNIV OF WISCONSIN- MILWAUKEE: $9k → 17%Virginia Tech: $10k → 21%California State Polytechnic: $11k → 14%MICHIGAN TECH: $14k → 14%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $64k → 13%UNIV OF WISCONSIN- MILWAUKEE: $9k → 17%California State Polytechnic: $10k → 14%MICHIGAN TECH: $14k → 14%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $50k → 13%MICHIGAN TECH: $12k → 14%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $47k → 13%MICHIGAN TECH: $11k → 14%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $19k → 13%MICHIGAN TECH MSE: $10k → 14%Univ of Wisconsin - Platteville: $18k → 13%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

WI
MI
IA
IN
OH
PA
CA
MO
VA
AZ
KS
AL
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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 18 repeat orgs$113k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +135% since the first grant, against -5% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
5

Total granted

$1.4M
$113k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+135%
-5%

Still filing today

11%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
    9× · 2017–2025 · $571k
  • MT
    Michigan Tech University
    8× · 2018–2025 · $133k
  • CP
    CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $95k · revenue -4%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue -12%
  • UO
    University of Wisconsin Madison
    one grant, 2024 · $37k
  • AS
    ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2019 · $12k
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

6 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. 6 of the 24 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
2/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN: $570,993 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSINMichigan Tech University: $133,328 · OtherMichigan Tech UniversityPITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY: $80,905 · OtherPITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITYVIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY: $66,915 · OtherGEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY: $56,823 · OtherWESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $44,525 · Other+12 more: $353,835 · Other+12 moreCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $94,707 · EducationCALIFORNIA POL…UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $50,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF …Trine University: $25,186 · EducationTrine Universi…VIRGINIA TECH FOUNDATION INC: $16,136 · EducationVIRGINIA TECH …UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA FOUNDATION: $7,500 · Education+1 more: $5,576 · Education
Other$1,307,324Education$199,105

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $94,707 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTrine University: $25,186 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetVIRGINIA TECH FOUNDATION INC: $16,136 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $5,576 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 CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Trine University ↗
  • Who funds VIRGINIA TECH FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION ↗

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 Collegiate A…Folds of Honor Founda…Tulsa Community Found…
National Collegiate Athletic AssociationIN15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Collegiate Athletic Association · Folds of Honor Foundation · Tulsa Community 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 Foundry Educational Foundation Dba Fef funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Foundry Educational Foundation Dba Fef. 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report 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 24 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 Foundry Educational Foundation Dba Fef’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