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

· Public charity

MATHCOUNTS Foundation

MATHCOUNTS provides engaging math programs for US middle school students of all ability levels to build confidence and improve attitudes towards math and problem solving.

$352k
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
16
States reached
$29k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$571kScience & Tech$178kCommunity Improvement$63kEmployment$49kPhilanthropy$8kMembership Benefit$5k
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 16 grants below total $152,212, the rows itemized in this filing. The $351,816 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $199,604 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 $10k10 grants · $64k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $88k
$8,336
Median grant
16
States reached
$5.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
California Soc of Prof Eng Edu Fdtn$28,754
Florida Engineering Foundation$14,494
Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation$11,834
New Jersey Soc Of Prof Engineers$11,146
Texas Engineering Foundation$10,950
Engineers Foundation of Ohio$10,916
Foundation for Engineering Education Inc$8,382
Prof Eng of North Carolina Edu Fndtn$8,336
Maryland Soc of Prof Eng Edu Fdtn$8,258
Illinois Engineering Initiative$6,588
Minnesota MATHCOUNTS$6,138
Michigan Engineers Foundation$5,544
Kentucky Society of Professional Engineers$5,346
Georgia MATHCOUNTS Foundation$5,318
NSPE-CO Education Foundation$5,144
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 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 80% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Minnesota MATHCOUNTS: $6k → 6%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $12k → 12%California Soc of Prof Eng Edu Fdtn: $29k → 12%Foundation for Engineering Education Inc: $8k → 14%MATHCOUNTS Manhattan: $12k → 17%Professional Engineers of North Carolina-Educational Foundation: $9k → 8%Engineers Foundation of Ohio: $11k → 15%Illinois Engineering Foundation: $9k → 11%New Jersey Soc Of Prof Engineers: $11k → 11%Maryland Soc of Prof Eng Edu Fdtn: $8k → 11%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $12k → 12%The California Society of Professional Engineers Education Foundation: $16k → 12%Foundation for Engineering Education Inc: $8k → 14%Prof Eng of North Carolina Edu Fndtn: $8k → 8%Engineers Foundation of Ohio: $9k → 15%Illinois Engineering Foundation: $9k → 11%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $11k → 12%The California Society of Professional Engineers Education Foundation: $16k → 12%Foundation for Engineering Education Inc: $8k → 14%Professional Engineers of North Carolina-Educational Foundation: $8k → 8%Engineers Foundation of Ohio: $8k → 15%Illinois Engineering Foundation: $8k → 11%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $11k → 12%The California Society of Professional Engineers Education Foundation: $16k → 12%Foundation for Engineering Education Inc: $7k → 14%Professional Engineers of North Carolina-Educational Foundation: $8k → 8%Engineers Foundation of Ohio: $8k → 15%Illinois Engineering Foundation: $7k → 11%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $11k → 12%The California Society of Professional Engineers Education Foundation: $16k → 12%Foundation for Engineering Education Inc: $7k → 14%Professional Engineers of North Carolina-Educational Foundation: $8k → 8%Engineers Foundation of Ohio: $8k → 15%Illinois Engineering Foundation: $7k → 11%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $10k → 12%California Soc of Prof Eng Edu Fdtn: $15k → 12%Foundation for Engineering Education Inc: $6k → 14%Engineers Foundation of Ohio: $6k → 15%Illinois Engineering Foundation: $7k → 11%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $9k → 12%The California Society of Professional Engineers Education Foundation: $14k → 12%Foundation for Engineering Education Inc: $6k → 14%Engineers Foundation of Ohio: $6k → 15%Illinois Engineering Initiative: $7k → 11%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $8k → 12%The California Society of Professional Engineers Education Foundation: $14k → 12%Pennsylvania Engineering Foundation: $8k → 12%The California Society of Professional Engineers Education Foundation: $14k → 12%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

MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OH
PA
NJ
CA
UT
CO
KY
VA
MD
NC
GA
TX
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$828k · 13 repeat orgs$46k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
3

Total granted

$828k
$22k

Still filing today

92%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationCommunity ImprovementEmploymentOther
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

  • FE
    FLORIDA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $97k · revenue +115%
  • EF
    ENGINEERS FOUNDATION OF OHIO
    9× · 2017–2025 · $68k · revenue +42%
  • IE
    ILLINOIS ENGINEERING INITIATIVE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $66k · revenue +32%

Funded once

  • MM
    MATHCOUNTS MANHATTAN INC
    one grant, 2017 · $12k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $5k
  • IE
    IOWA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
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
Hawaii Society of Professional Engineers Educational Foundation

Educational programs.

Education
2
National Engineers Week Foundation

Encouraging young students in middle high school to enter the engineering field

Education
3
Monroe Professional Engineers Society

The Monroe Professional Engineers Society MPES promotes social and economic welfare of the engineering profession develops continuing education opportunities and raises awareness of the profession among our youth

Community Improvement
4
Montclair Society of Engineers
Science & Tech
5
National Engineers Week Foundation

Educational Activity

Education
6
Oklahoma Engineering Foundation Inc

To further STEM education in Oklahoma and increase the number of engineering professionals living and working in the state.

—
7
South Carolina Society of Professional Engineers - Educational Foundation

To further the interest of professional engineeers

Education
8
Alaska Engineering Education Foundation

To promote engineering education in alaska, benefit the public by providing educational and charitable activities related to all engineering fields, and build an endowment to support current and future activities.

Education
9
Kentucky Engineering Foundationinc

The kentucky engineering foundation grants scholarships, provides guidance and assists worthy students to obtain instruction and training in engineering and mathematics; instruction of the public and the dissemination of engineering…

Education
10
Chinese Institute of Engineersusa

Promotes in sciense, engineering fields

Science & Tech
11
American Society of Civil Engineers Minnesota Section

Promote civil engineering education

—
12
Guru Genie Technology Foundation Inc

Provide assistance to education professionals so they can better deliver curriculum to aspiring engineering students

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Professional Engineers of North Carolina Educational Foundation; the most unlike its peers is New Jersey Society of Professional Engineers. 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

15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 20 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
5/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

California Society of Professional Engineers Educa: $149,899 · OtherCalifornia Society of Professional Engineers EducaFLORIDA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION INC: $96,569 · OtherFLORIDA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION INCILLINOIS ENGINEERING INITIATIVE: $65,828 · OtherILLINOIS ENGINEERING INITIATIVEMICHIGAN ENGINEERS FOUNDATION: $21,394 · OtherVIRGINIA SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS EDUCATIONAL FUND: $21,155 · OtherNATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS COLORADO EDUCATION FDN: $20,774 · Other+6 more: $41,142 · Other+6 morePENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION: $92,864 · EducationPENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING FOUNDATIONTexas Engineering Foundation: $90,970 · EducationTexas Engineering FoundationENGINEERS FOUNDATION OF OHIO: $67,906 · EducationENGINEERS FOUNDATION OF OHIOPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF NORTH CAROLINA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $58,566 · EducationPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF NORTH CAROLINA EDU…MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FOUNDATION: $29,973 · EducationMINNESOTA SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS …+1 more: $5,318 · EducationTHE FOUNDATION FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION INC: $62,567 · Community ImprovementNEW JERSEY SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS: $49,246 · Employment
Other$416,761Education$345,597Community Improvement$62,567Employment$49,246

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

25%50%75%100%$100kgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCalifornia Society of Professional Engineers Educa: $149,899 over 9y, 39% of budgetFLORIDA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION INC: $96,569 over 9y, 8.8% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION: $92,864 over 9y, 19% of budgetTexas Engineering Foundation: $90,970 over 9y, 5.6% of budgetENGINEERS FOUNDATION OF OHIO: $67,906 over 9y, 3.3% of budgetILLINOIS ENGINEERING INITIATIVE: $65,828 over 9y, 10% of budgetTHE FOUNDATION FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION INC: $62,567 over 9y, 6.9% of budgetPROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF NORTH CAROLINA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $58,566 over 8y, 12% of budgetNEW JERSEY SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS: $49,246 over 8y, 7.3% of budgetMINNESOTA SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FOUNDATION: $29,973 over 5y, 9.2% of budgetNATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS COLORADO EDUCATION FDN: $20,774 over 4y, 16% of budgetKENTUCKY SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS INC: $5,346 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetGEORGIA MATHCOUNTS FOUNDATION: $5,318 over 1y, 12% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS INC: $5,064 over 1y, 33% 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 California Society of Professional Engineers Educa ↗
  • Who funds FLORIDA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Texas Engineering Foundation ↗
  • Who funds ENGINEERS FOUNDATION OF OHIO ↗
  • Who funds ILLINOIS ENGINEERING INITIATIVE ↗
  • Who funds THE FOUNDATION FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF NORTH CAROLINA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds NEW JERSEY SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ↗
  • Who funds MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN ENGINEERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS COLORADO EDUCATION FDN ↗
  • Who funds KENTUCKY SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS INC ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA MATHCOUNTS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS INC ↗

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.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 MATHCOUNTS Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from MATHCOUNTS Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%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
    3get 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 · 0–5%
    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 20 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 MATHCOUNTS’ 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