Skip to content
Griffiss Institute Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Griffiss Institute Inc

The griffiss institute aims to develop the next generation of stem talent and defense technologies that will strengthen u.s.

$1.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
—
States reached
$280k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02Its granteesRead
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Science & Tech$998kCommunity Improvement$278kArts & Culture$241kEducation$234kYouth Development$135kHealth$108kPhilanthropy$105kPublic Benefit$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $590,750, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,220,250 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $629,500 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $91k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $213k
  • $250k+1 grant · $280k
$32,500
Median grant
—
States reached
$7.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DRONE CITY LLC$280,000
ARTIFICIAL BRAIN TECH INC$107,500
Individual grant recipient$105,000
TRIARII AI LLC SEAN SMITH$32,500
Individual grant recipient$32,500
UTAH STEM FOUNDATION$15,000
UGIFT529$10,750
ARONETICS$7,500
02Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

37%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$778k · 4 repeat orgs$1.3M to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
19

Total granted

$778k
$1.0M

Still filing today

25%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $296k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24
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

  • DC
    DRONE CITY LLC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $345k
  • US
    UTAH STEM FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $223k · revenue +31% · 35% of their budget
  • CI
    CYBERSPORA INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $110k

Funded once

  • TI
    THERMOAI INC
    one grant, 2022 · $200k
  • B
    BLOOMOPTIX
    one grant, 2021 · $200k
  • EE
    EMPOWER EQUITY INC
    one grant, 2023 · $160k
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.

03Its field
03the grantee network

1 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2019–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2019 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 1 of the 29 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
1/1
Grantees still filing
1/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DRONE CITY LLC: $345,000 · OtherDRONE CITY LLCTHERMOAI INC: $200,000 · OtherTHERMOAI INCBLOOMOPTIX: $199,633 · OtherBLOOMOPTIXEMPOWER EQUITY INC: $160,000 · OtherEMPOWER EQUITY INCCYBERSPORA INC: $110,000 · OtherCYBERSPORA INCBOSONQ PSI CORP: $110,000 · OtherBOSONQ PSI CORPARTIFICIAL BRAIN TECH INC: $107,500 · OtherARTIFICIAL BRAIN TECH INCIndividual grant recipient: $105,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPaterson Aerospace Systems Corp: $105,000 · OtherPaterson Aerospace Systems CorpPREVISION CORP: $100,000 · OtherVISTEX COMPOSITES: $100,000 · Other+17 more: $250,362 · Other+17 moreUTAH STEM FOUNDATION INC: $223,000 · EducationUTAH STEM F…
Other$1,892,495Education$223,000

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUTAH STEM FOUNDATION INC: $223,000 over 2y, 35% 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 UTAH STEM FOUNDATION INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Griffiss Institute Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Griffiss Institute Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 29 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 Griffiss 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