Skip to content
Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives Inc

Massachusetts biomedical initiatives, inc.

$237k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
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 2024.

Education$1.3MScience & Tech$75kCommunity Improvement$50kEmployment$25k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $211,928, the rows itemized in this filing. The $236,928 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $25,000 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

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $112k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$40,058
Median grant
1
States reached
$33M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
QUINSIGAMOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE$50,000
BIOBUILDER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC$50,000
WORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY$40,058
MASSACHUSETTS BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION$25,000
MASSACHUSETTS LIFE SCIENCES CENTER$25,000
MCPHS$21,870
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MASSACHUSETTS BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $34k → 8%GLOUCESTER MARINE GENOMICS INSTITUTE: $25k → 10%QUINSIGAMOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $141k → 11%MCPHS: $22k → 16%MASSACHUSETTS BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $25k → 8%QUINSIGAMOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $138k → 11%MASSACHUSETTS BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $25k → 8%QUINSIGAMOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $113k → 11%MASSACHUSETTS LIFE SCIENCES CENTER: $25k → 8%QUINSIGAMOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $97k → 11%MASSACHUSETTS LIFE SCIENCES CENTER: $25k → 8%QUINSIGAMOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $94k → 11%BIOBUILDER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC: $50k → 8%QUINSIGAMOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $50k → 11%GIRLS INCORPORATED OF WORCESTER: $25k → 11%WORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY: $141k → 11%WORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY: $138k → 11%WORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY: $94k → 11%WORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY: $63k → 11%WORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY: $47k → 11%WORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY: $40k → 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.
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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 4 repeat orgs$172k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +234% since the first grant, against +2% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
3

Total granted

$1.3M
$100k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+234%
+2%

Still filing today

50%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $72k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationScience & TechOther
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

  • QC
    Quinsigamond Community College Foundation Inc
    6× · 2019–2024 · $631k · revenue +234% · 31% of their budget
  • WS
    WORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY
    7× · 2019–2025 · $521k
  • MB
    MASSACHUSETTS BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $84k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • AR
    AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
  • GI
    GIRLS INCORPORATED OF WORCESTER
    2× · 2022–2025 · $25k · revenue +2%
  • GLOUCESTER MARINE GENOMICS INSTITUTE INCORPORATED
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -14%
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 9 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Quinsigamond Community College Foundation Inc: $631,250 · EducationQuinsigamond Community College Foundation IncMASSACHUSETTS BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $83,875 · EducationMASSACHUSETTS BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION INCBIOBUILDER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $50,000 · EducationBIOBUILDER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION+1 more: $21,870 · EducationWORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITY: $521,308 · OtherWORCESTER STATE UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA): $50,000 · OtherAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA)MASSACHUSETTS LIFE SCIENCES CENTER: $50,000 · OtherMASSACHUSETTS LIFE SCIENCES CENTERGIRLS INCORPORATED OF WORCESTER: $25,000 · OtherGLOUCESTER MARINE GENOMICS INSTITUTE INCORPORATED: $25,000 · Science & Tech
Education$786,995Other$646,308Science & Tech$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetQuinsigamond Community College Foundation Inc: $631,250 over 6y, 31% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $83,875 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetBIOBUILDER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetGIRLS INCORPORATED OF WORCESTER: $25,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetGLOUCESTER MARINE GENOMICS INSTITUTE INCORPORATED: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetMCPHS UNIVERSITY: $21,870 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.

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.

American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation 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 Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Gloucester Marine Genomics Institute Incorporated: 16% of income from government
  • Girls Incorporated of Worcester: 2% of income from government
  • Mcphs University: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get 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 · 0–40%
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 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 2024, released 2024. 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 $125k 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 FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives’ 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