Skip to content
Intertech Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Intertech Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$5k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
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, FY2019 to 2025.

Education$102kHealth$15kHuman Services$14kFood & Nutrition$12kInternational$10kHousing & Shelter$750
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$4,802
Median grant
2
States reached
$28k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY$4,802
EHS FIRST ROBOTICS BOOSTER CLUB$100
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–21, $14k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%CRESCENT COVE: $13k → 11%CRESCENT COVE: $500 → 11%BRIDGE FOR YOUTH: $250 → 11%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

WA
MN
IL
WI
NY
MA
SD
IA
PA
CT
NE
MD
TN
DC
GA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 5% of Intertech Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Intertech Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 6.5% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$98k · 14 repeat orgs$53k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +98% since the first grant, against +27% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
26

Total granted

$98k
$48k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+98%
+27%

Still filing today

29%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationInternationalHuman ServicesFood & NutritionYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • CC
    CRESCENT COVE
    2× · 2020–2021 · $14k · revenue +98%
  • ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $7k · revenue +78%
  • EM
    EVERY MEAL
    2× · 2020–2021 · $3k · revenue +558%

Funded once

  • SP
    ST PAUL ACADEMY
    one grant, 2020 · $20k
  • SM
    ST MAXIMILLIAN KOLBE SCHOOL
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $3k
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
Children's Health Care

We champion the health needs of children and families. we are committed to improving children's health by providing the highest-quality, family centered care, advanced through research and education.

Health
2
Children's Hospital Corporation

Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service

Health
3
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

The children's hospital of philadelphia, the oldest hospital in the united states dedicated exclusively to pediatrics, strives to be the world leader in the advancement of health care for children by integrating excellent patient care,…

Health
4
Children's Heartlink

We save children's lives by transforming pediatric heart care in underserved parts of the world.

—
5
The Children's Cancer Cause Inc

The mission of children's cancer cause is to champion policies and programs that improve the lives of children with cancer and survivors.

Health
6
Jewish Family and Children's Service of Minneapolis

Jewish family and children's service of minneapolis provides essential services to people of all ages and backgrounds to sustain healthy relationships, ease suffering and offer support in times of need.

Human Services
7
Lifeworks Services Inc

Lifeworks' mission is to partner with people with disabilities to drive change by increasing opportunity and access in the community.

Human Services
8
Curesearch for Children's Cancer

Curesearch's mission is to fund & support targeted & innovative cancer research with measurable results, & to be the authoritative source of information & resources for all those affected by children's cancer. see schedule o for…

Health
9
Cook Children's Medical Center

Knowing that every child's life is sacred, our promise is to improve the health of every child in our region through the prevention and treatment of illness, disease and injury.

Health
10
Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital Inc

Mission: johns hopkins all children's hospital (all children's), a member of johns hopkins medicine, strives to provide the highest quality care to improve the health of our entire community through innovation, collaboration, service…

Health
11
Cook Children's Health Plan

Knowing that every child's life is sacred, our promise is to improve the health of every child in our region through the prevention and treatment of illness, disease, and injury.

Health
12
Cook Children's Medical Center - Prosper

Knowing that every child's life is sacred, our promise is to improve the health of every child in our region through the prevention and treatment of illness, disease and injury.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Feed My Starving Children Inc; the most unlike its peers is Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

16 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. 16 of the 43 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
11/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST PAUL ACADEMY: $20,000 · OtherST PAUL ACADEMYST MAXIMILLIAN KOLBE SCHOOL: $10,000 · OtherST MAXIMILLIAN KOLBE SCHOOLOPEN DOOR PANTRY: $8,000 · OtherOPEN DOOR PANTRYUW-EAU CLAIREANDREW HARDING: $2,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · OtherCORNELL UNIVERSITY - SOPHIA HOLUBOW: $2,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · OtherIOWA ST ALEX CHAMBERS: $2,500 · OtherWorcester Poly NAOMI BOLDEBUCK: $2,500 · OtherCARELTON COLLEGE - AUDREY SCHARTZ: $2,500 · OtherCREIGHTON UNIVERSITYEMILY DAHL: $2,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · Other+15 more: $9,300 · Other+15 moreJEAN LYLE CHILDREN'S CENTER: $45,000 · EducationJEAN LYLE CHILDREN'S CENTER+2 more: $350 · EducationCRESCENT COVE: $13,500 · Human ServicesCRESCENT C…+1 more: $250 · Human ServicesST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $7,250 · HealthST JUDE C…AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $4,802 · HealthAMERICAN …RIVER VALLEY RIDERS: $500 · Health+1 more: $250 · HealthSave The Children Federation Inc: $2,500 · InternationalLIFESONG FOR ORPHANS INC: $2,500 · InternationalWORLD VISION INC: $2,500 · International+1 more: $250 · InternationalEVERY MEAL: $3,000 · Food & NutritionHOPE 4 Youth: $500 · Youth DevelopmentJEREMIAH PROGRAM: $250 · Housing & Shelter
Other$69,800Education$45,350Human Services$13,750Health$12,802International$7,750Food & Nutrition$3,000Youth Development$500Housing & Shelter$250

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 budgetJEAN LYLE CHILDREN'S CENTER: $45,000 over 2y, 9.3% of budgetCRESCENT COVE: $13,500 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $7,250 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $4,802 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEVERY MEAL: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSave The Children Federation Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLIFESONG FOR ORPHANS INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWORLD VISION INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHOPE 4 Youth: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRIVER VALLEY RIDERS: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMINNESOTA COMPUTERS FOR SCHOOLS: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFEED MY STARVING CHILDREN INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJEREMIAH PROGRAM: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BRIDGE FOR YOUTH: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRINITY SCHOOLS INC: $100 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.

  • Who funds JEAN LYLE CHILDREN'S CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CRESCENT COVE ↗
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds EVERY MEAL ↗
  • Who funds Save The Children Federation Inc ↗
  • Who funds LIFESONG FOR ORPHANS INC ↗
  • Who funds WORLD VISION INC ↗
  • Who funds HOPE 4 Youth ↗
  • Who funds RIVER VALLEY RIDERS ↗
  • Who funds MINNESOTA COMPUTERS FOR SCHOOLS ↗
  • Who funds CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds FEED MY STARVING CHILDREN INC ↗
  • Who funds JEREMIAH PROGRAM ↗
  • Who funds THE BRIDGE FOR YOUTH ↗

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.

The Richard M Schulze…Saint Paul & Minnesot…Mightycause Charitabl…The Blackbaud Giving …American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Richard M Schulze Family FoundationMN13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Intertech Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Intertech Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 30%
  • Save the Children Federation Inc: 30% of 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 · 0–40%
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 43 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-PF 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 Intertech’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