Loading…
· Public charity
New York City Industrial Technology
To strengthen the economy and job base of new york city by improving the competitiveness of local industrial and technology firms.
$78k
Granted FY2024
3
Grants
1
Communities
$48k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 64% of New York City Industrial Technology’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2021
ppe
2022
scale ppeppe productionproduction maximizemaximize ppeppe lifespan
2024
award
2025
manufacturing
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 3 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $5k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $73k
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
- Cohesive Robotics$47,742
- Pvilion Technologies LLC$25,000
- Re-Nuble Inc$5,290
02The need
04
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 18% — the area typically sits at 12%. 94% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your 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
New York Institute of Technology
We are committed to educating the next generation of leaders and inspiring innovation. (see sch o)
Education
2
Alfred Technology Resources Inc
To stimulate economic development in the southern tier region of ny, through support of the creation of innovative business start-ups and the jobs they create. this support is provided through its business incubator facilities and the…
Community Improvement
3
Hudson Valley Technology Development Center Inc
—
4
Technology Club of Syracuse
—
5
Upstate Venture Connect Corporation
The Corporation is organized to accelerate growth of Upstate New York's technological economy. The corporation willaccelerate the creation and growth of knowledge based business fueled by private investorcapital, promote collaboration…
Community Improvement
6
New York City Industrial Technology
To strengthen the economy and job base of new york city by improving the competitiveness of local industrial and technology firms.
—
7
New York Center for Research Economic
The new york center for research, economic advancement, technology, engineering and science corporation (ny creates) formed for the purpose of advancing scientific research, education and economic development within new york state.…
Science & Tech
8
Manufacturers Association of Central New
The mission of the organization is to facilitate the long term success of manufacturers in new york state. the association advocates a favorable business climate in new york state and provides professional services to enhance the success…
—
9
The Rochester Technology & Manufacturing
The Rochester Technology & Manufacturing Association promotes advanced manufacturing innovation and growth, in the Greater Rochester - Finger Lakes Region by partnering with industry, academia, & government.
—
10
Syracuse University
Syracuse university is a non-profit research university devoted to education, research and public engagement.
Education
11
Technyc Inc
Ensures that new york is the best place to build and grow a technology company.
Community Improvement
12
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) is a national resource committed to assisting industry and government achieve world-class competitiveness. CTC is an applied research and development professional services organization that…
Science & Tech
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Central New York Technology Development and the most unlike its peers is The Research Foundation for the State University of New York. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
8 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$198,032Social Science$53,000Education$30,000Science & Tech$10,000Employment$10,000Health$10,000
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Fuzehub IncNY18.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Fuzehub Inc
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 organisation New York City Industrial Technology 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.
2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely 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. 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.
04Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: CITEC.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~18 months of operating runway; revenue held over 8 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 133673737 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on CITEC, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 18 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 1% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to New York City Industrial Technology?
Find your warmest path to New York City Industrial Technology through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
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