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

· 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 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, FY2022 to 2025.

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$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

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

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

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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

+2%
+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
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

  • RT
    Ranken Technical College
    4× · 2022–2025 · $181k · revenue +2%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND RESEARCH FOUNDATION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +43%
  • CC
    CATALYST CONNECTION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $27k · revenue +8%

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%
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
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwest Pa Industrial Resource Center Inc; 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 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. 18 of the 24 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
12/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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 budgetNORTHWEST PA INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCENTER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetOregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetALLIANCE FOR MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN TIER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetFLORIDAMAKES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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
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.

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

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 Missouri Incutech Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Missouri Incutech Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's 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
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 24 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 Missouri Incutech’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