Skip to content

· Public charity

Maine International Trade Center

To promote the expansion of Maine's economy through increased international trade in goods and services, and related activities.

$593k
Granted FY2025still arriving
41
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$54k
Largest
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$816kCommunity Improvement$758kEmployment$418kFood & Nutrition$169kHealth$39kArts & Culture$24kPublic Benefit$14kCrime & Legal$13kOther$0
02FY2025 · 41 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 41 grants below total $519,677, the rows itemized in this filing. The $593,267 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $73,590 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 $10k21 grants · $152k
  • $10k–50k19 grants · $313k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
$9,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Xodus Group Inc$53,807
Joshua Halpern Getting To Global LLC Dba Van Bassador$30,240
Stone & Associates$24,000
Hawkin Dynamics LLC$23,850
Gneiss Spice LLC$23,000
Primetarget$22,500
Montalvo Corp$19,776
Auburn Manufacturing$15,000
Mid State Machine Products$15,000
Southern Maine Sustainable Shellfish$15,000
Caron Engineering$15,000
Katheryn Langeller - Herbal Revolution$13,332
Blackbird Baking Co Of Maine Dba Two Black Cats Bakery$13,298
Organic Momentum Inc Dba Grandy Organics$12,954
Ocean Approved Inc Dba Atlantic Sea Farms$12,938
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 9%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 28% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Heuchling Group Inc: $24k → 14%Xodus Group Inc: $103k → 16%Joshua Halpern Getting To Global LLC Dba Van Bassador: $30k → 16%Primetarget: $23k → 7%Gneiss Spice LLC: $23k → 13%Auburn Manufacturing: $15k → 13%Xodus Group Inc: $54k → 16%Orono Spectral Solutions: $16k → 15%Xodus Group Inc: $20k → 16%Jynx Productions: $24k → 7%Mid State Machine Products: $15k → 12%Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council: $40k → 13%Jasper Wyman & Son: $15k → 16%Maritime Applied Physics Corp: $14k → 7%Elmet Technologies: $14k → 13%Cascon: $14k → 7%Grimburg Less Lethal: $15k → 13%Stone & Associates: $24k → 9%Compotech Inc: $28k → 15%Stone & Associates: $15k → 9%Compotech: $22k → 15%Deepwater Buoyancy: $26k → 9%Deepwater Buoyancy: $24k → 9%Deepwater Buoyancy: $16k → 9%Fiber Materials: $14k → 9%Mallard Enterprises: $18k → 7%Blue Barn LLC dba Bluet: $16k → 7%Stone & Associates: $259k → 7%Stone & Associates: $33k → 7%Kelson Marine: $20k → 7%Yale Cordage: $14k → 9%Kelson Marine: $19k → 7%Kelson Marine: $19k → 7%Stone & Associates: $19k → 7%Caron Engineering: $15k → 9%Elizer LLC: $16k → 7%Comfort Waters LLC dba Three Of Strong Spirits: $15k → 7%Southern Maine Sustainable Shellfish: $15k → 9%Ellevet Sciences LLC: $20k → 7%Rapid Assault Tools: $15k → 7%Montalvo Corp: $20k → 7%Montalvo Corp: $19k → 7%Montalvo Corp: $17k → 7%Hawkin Dynamics LLC: $24k → 7%Lanco Integrated: $20k → 7%Lanco Intergrated: $16k → 7%Ragged Coast Chocolates LLC: $15k → 7%Silvex Surface Technology: $14k → 7%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

ME
IL
NY
IN
KY
VA
SC
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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 30 repeat orgs$940k to everyone else

30 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 27 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
55

Total granted

$1.3M
$621k

Still filing today

0%
4%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 39% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $319k 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

  • SA
    Stone & Associates
    6× · 2018–2025 · $347k
  • XG
    Xodus Group Inc
    3× · 2023–2025 · $178k
  • DB
    Deepwater Buoyancy
    6× · 2020–2025 · $93k

Funded once

  • LE
    Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council
    one grant, 2017 · $40k · revenue -96%
  • SA
    Stone & Associates
    one grant, 2020 · $27k
  • HG
    Heuchling Group Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $24k
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

4 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. 4 of the 112 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)
3/4
Grantees still filing
1/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Stone & Associates: $346,560 · OtherStone & AssociatesXodus Group Inc: $177,679 · OtherXodus Group IncDeepwater Buoyancy: $92,894 · Other+108 more: $1,654,462 · Other+108 moreGreater Portland Economic Development Corp: $11,090 · Community Improvement
Other$2,271,595Community Improvement$11,090

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council: $40,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetGreater Portland Economic Development Corp: $11,090 over 1y, 100% of budgetMaine Center For Entrepreneurs: $7,485 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetThe Council Of State Governments: $5,400 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 Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council ↗

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.

Maine Technology InstituteME97.1× affinity53 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Maine Technology Institute · Food Export USA - Northeast · Eastern Maine Development Corporation

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 Maine International Trade Center funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Maine International Trade Center. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 112 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 Maine International Trade Center’s filings →

    More from the funding graph