Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Missouri Incutech Foundation

State and federal funded program for economic development of local businesses, primarily manufacturers and high-technology industries.

$144k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$81k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2025.

Community Improvement$562kInternational$270kEducation$269kScience & Tech$82kPublic Benefit$20kSocial Science$10kFood & Nutrition$9k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$81,250
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL$81,250
RANKIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE$62,500
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY22–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 91% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CATALYST CONNECTION: $17k → 11%MANUFACTURING RESOURCE CENTER: $10k → 11%NORTHWEST INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTR: $10k → 15%DELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE: $10k → 22%CENTER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH INC: $10k → 14%ALLIANCE FOR MANUFATURING & TECHNOL: $10k → 20%FLORIDAMAKES INC: $10k → 13%IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE: $7k → 17%MID-AMERICA MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOG: $20k → 5%ST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL: $128k → 11%MISSOURI UNIVERSITY SCIENCE & TECH: $62k → 16%RANKIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $63k → 21%OREGON MANUFACTURING EXTENSION: $10k → 8%URI RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $30k → 7%PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 19%MEP AT COLUMBUS STATE: $20k → 15%MAGNET: $196k → 17%CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE FOOD TECHNOLO: $9k → 18%IMPACT WASHINGTON: $10k → 9%NEW JERSEY MEP: $27k → 4%CATALYST CONNECTION: $10k → 11%ST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL: $81k → 11%MISSOURI UNIVERSITY SCIENCE & TECH: $13k → 16%RANKIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $63k → 21%URI RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $10k → 7%PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 19%MAGNET: $172k → 17%ST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL: $36k → 11%RANKIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $31k → 21%ST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL: $25k → 11%RANKIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $25k → 21%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Which US states your grants reach

WA
MT
NY
OR
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
RI
CA
NE
MO
KS
FL

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$991k · 7 repeat orgs$231k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
17

Total granted

$991k
$231k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
+11%

Still filing today

71%
76%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementEducationScience & TechSocial ScienceEmploymentOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • SL
    ST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
    4× · 2022–2025 · $270k · revenue +139%
  • RT
    Ranken Technical College
    4× · 2022–2025 · $181k · revenue +2%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND RESEARCH FOUNDATION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • BO
    BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA
    one grant, 2022 · $38k
  • NJ
    New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program Incorporated
    one grant, 2022 · $27k · revenue +14%
  • KM
    Kansas Manufacturing Solutions Incgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue +35%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Mantec Inc

Accelerating manufacturing excellence.

Community Improvement
2
Enterprise Minnesota

To promote economic growth and job creation through applied research, technology transfer, and productive development.

Public Benefit
3
Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing & Productivity

The wcmp will grow and nurture the mep's impact in the state of wisconsin by engaging and aligning the best possible resources to help small and medium-sized manufacturers reach their potential.

Education
4
Manufacturing Extension Partnership of New Hampshire Inc

Furtherance of the dept of commerce nist mep program

Employment
5
Industrial Technology Institute

To enhance the global competitiveness of michigan's small to medium-sized manufacturers.

—
6
Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Res Resource Center Inc

None

Community Improvement
7
Dakota Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc

The purpose of dakota mep is to increase the competitiveness of manufacturing companies, other new wealth creating companies and related idustries that impact such enterprises, in order to strengthen our country's economic vitality.

Employment
8
Connstep Inc

To help connecticut manufacturers apply advanced manufacturing and management techniques to become more competitive, supporting the growth of connecticut economy.

Community Improvement
9
The Manufacturing Academy
Employment
10
South Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership

SCMEP is a strategic advisor, promoting business growth and connecting manufacturers to public and private resources essential to their achieving increased competitiveness and profitability. See Sch O for additional information.

Community Improvement
11
Maryland Mep Inc

The mission of maryland mep is to strengthen and grow maryland's manufacturing industry by providing resources and expertise that enhance operational performance, drive innovation, and support workforce development across all sectors of…

Community Improvement
12
Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership

The organization is an educational extension program established to provide manufacturers, located in the commonwealth of massachusetts, with assistance in applying production and process technologies and business management practices to…

Community Improvement

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwest Pa Industrial Resource Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Puerto Rico Manufacturing Extension Primex Inc. 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

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 24 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
13/18
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

ST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS — $269,910 · OtherST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSCURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI — $75,000 · OtherCURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIBOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA — $38,262 · OtherBOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRA…TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY — $30,000 · OtherTRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITYCOLUMBUS STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE — $20,000 · Other+4 more — $36,500 · Other+4 moreMANUFACTURING ADVOCACY & GROWTH NETWORK INC — $367,921 · Community ImprovementMANUFACTURING ADVOCACY & GROWTH NETWORK INCNew Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program Incorporated — $27,000 · Community ImprovementNew Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program …Kansas Manufacturing Solutions Inc — $20,129 · Community Improvement+5 more — $49,000 · Community Improvement+5 moreRanken Technical College — $181,250 · EducationRanken Technical C…FLORIDAMAKES INC — $10,000 · EducationWASHINGTON MANUFACTURING SERVICES — $9,900 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND RESEARCH FOUNDATION — $40,000 · Science & TechCATALYST CONNECTION — $26,500 · Science & TechCENTER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH INC — $10,000 · Social ScienceALLIANCE FOR MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN TIER INC — $10,000 · Employment
Other$469,672Community Improvement$464,050Education$201,150Science & Tech$66,500Social Science$10,000Employment$10,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetMANUFACTURING ADVOCACY & GROWTH NETWORK INC — $367,921 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetST LOUIS CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS — $269,910 over 4y, 9.7% of budgetRanken Technical College — $181,250 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND RESEARCH FOUNDATION — $40,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetNew Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program Incorporated — $27,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCATALYST CONNECTION — $26,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetKansas Manufacturing Solutions Inc — $20,129 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetPUERTO RICO MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PRIMEX INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING — $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER — $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCENTER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetALLIANCE FOR MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN TIER INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetOregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc — $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFLORIDAMAKES INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNORTHWEST PA INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMANUFACTURERS RESOURCE CENTER — $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWASHINGTON MANUFACTURING SERVICES — $9,900 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCIFT — $9,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Pa Irc Network Founda…Irc Network IncAmerican Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
Pa Irc Network FoundationPA30.6× affinity12 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Pa Irc Network Foundation · Irc Network Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization Missouri Incutech Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 83%
  • Floridamakes Inc — 93% of income from government
  • Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc — 83% of income from government
  • New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program Incorporated — 81% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
3rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 24 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines