Skip to content
Ivy Tech Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Ivy Tech Foundation Inc

To receive, hold, invest and administer property; and to solicit and receive contributions; to make expenditures to or for the benefit of ivy tech community college.

$7.7M
Granted FY2020
5
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$5k
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 2020.

Education$94kCommunity Improvement$5k
02FY2020 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $25,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $7,665,276 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $7,640,276 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.
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$165M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INDIANA PHILANTHROPY ALLIANCE INC$5,000
BLOOMINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP$5,000
INTERNATIONAL MARKETPLACE COALITION$5,000
VISIT INDY$5,000
YMCA OF GREATER INDIANAPOLIS$5,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–20, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%INTERNATIONAL MARKETPLACE COALITION: $5k → 16%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.
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

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
Indianapolis Downtown Marketing Inc

Indianapolis Downtown Marketing, Inc. (IDMI) exists to improve downtown Indianapolis. IDMI focuses on marketing downtown businesses, destinations, organizations, activities and events.

—
2
Greater Laporte Economic Development Corporation

To recruit new business and industry into the laporte county area and combat community deterioration by promoting stability, growth, and development of business and industry.

Community Improvement
3
Indiana Innovation Council Inc

Promote and educate indiana residents on the state's economic success and positive gains.

—
4
Greater Erie Economic Development Corporation
—
5
Indiana Economic Development Foundation Inc

To promote industrial and business development, diversification of indiana's economy, and overall economic growth of indiana; to promote the retention, expansion, growth, and modernization of indiana's businesses; to promote the creation…

Community Improvement
6
Leadership Indianapolis Inc

Educate, Inspire, Connect and Mobilize Community Leaders to serve and strengthen greater Indianapolis.

Public Benefit
7
Perry County Development Corp

Promote development in Perry County, Indiana

—
8
Indiana Economic Development Association Inc

To promote and improve the quality of economic development throughout the state of indiana.

—
9
Northeast Indiana Foundation Inc

The northeast indiana foundation's mission is support the partnership through sustained leadership, collaboration, transformative initiatives and the alignment of resources toward shared regional goals.

Community Improvement
10
Louisville Economic Development Alliance Inc

Louisville Economic Development Alliance LEDA is the principal economic development entity for Louisville-Jefferson County with a mission to make Louisville the best community in America to build a thriving company a rewarding career and a…

Community Improvement
11
Lafayette Urban Enterprise Associat

Direct enterprise zone activities and reinvestment in the city of lafayette, indiana.

Community Improvement
12
Greater Lansing Destination Development Foundation
Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greater Fort Wayne Metro Chamber Alliance Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ymca Foundation of Greater Indianapolis. 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

9 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.

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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BLOOMINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $15,500 · OtherBLOOMINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPVisit Indy Inc: $15,000 · OtherVisit Indy IncNORTHEAST INDIANA REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP INC: $12,500 · OtherNORTHEAST INDIANA REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP INCGREATER FORT WAYNE METRO CHAMBER ALLIANCE INC: $10,000 · OtherGREATER FORT WAYNE METRO CHAMBER ALLIANCE INCYMCA Foundation of Greater Indianapolis: $5,000 · OtherYMCA Foundation of Greater IndianapolisDimension Mill INC: $20,000 · Community ImprovementDimension Mill INCGREATER KOKOMO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE INC: $11,000 · Community ImprovementGREATER KOKOMO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT…Indiana Philanthropy Alliance Inc: $5,000 · PhilanthropyLAFAYETTE SQUARE AREA COALITION: $5,000 · Human Services
Other$58,000Community Improvement$31,000Philanthropy$5,000Human Services$5,000

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 budgetDimension Mill INC: $20,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetBLOOMINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $15,500 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetVisit Indy Inc: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHEAST INDIANA REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP INC: $12,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetGREATER KOKOMO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE INC: $11,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetIndiana Philanthropy Alliance Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetYMCA Foundation of Greater Indianapolis: $5,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetLAFAYETTE SQUARE AREA COALITION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.8% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Community Foundation …
Community Foundation of Greater Fort Wayne IncIN13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Greater Fort Wayne 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 Ivy Tech Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ivy Tech Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%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 · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 9 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $6.6M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2020, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ivy Tech’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