Skip to content
Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc

Assist oregon manufacturing businesses with the implementation of advanced manufacturing practices.

$371k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$153k
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.

Community Improvement$1.1MEducation$798kEmployment$221kScience & Tech$73k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$5.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY$153,208
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA$100,000
CMTC$65,014
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY$52,473
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–21, $27k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%IMEC: $20k → 14%IMEC: $7k → 14%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

ID
MT
IL
MI
NY
OR
NV
IA
OH
PA
CA
NM
SC
HI
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.
$1.9M · 11 repeat orgs$259k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +22% since the first grant, against +20% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
2

Total granted

$1.9M
$194k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+22%
+20%

Still filing today

55%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $65k 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
Community ImprovementHuman ServicesEmploymentOther
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

  • IT
    INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE
    2× · 2020–2021 · $359k · revenue +28%
  • MA
    MANUFACTURING ADVOCACY & GROWTH NETWORK INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $192k · revenue +8%
  • SC
    South Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership
    2× · 2020–2021 · $61k · revenue +22%

Funded once

  • WI
    Worksystems Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $163k · revenue +20%
  • NM
    NEW MEXICO MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
    one grant, 2021 · $31k · revenue +7%
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
New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program Incorporated

Strengthen manufacturers competitiveness by enhancing productivity, performance and profitability. as a trusted advisor to new jersey manufacturers, we leverage our staff and resources to help identify areas of improvement and streamline…

Community Improvement
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
The Manufacturing Academy
Employment
5
Washington Manufacturing Services

Impact washington is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support and energize our local industry by enhancing the research and innovation, productivity, and technology performance of washington state manufacturers. we support…

Education
6
Enterprise Minnesota

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

Public Benefit
7
Manufacturing Extension Partnership of New Hampshire Inc

Furtherance of the dept of commerce nist mep program

Employment
8
Catalyst Connection

Catalyst connection is an economic development organization whose mission is to advance the performance of small and medium-sized manufacturing companies in southwestern pennsylvania by accelerating their growth and productivity…

Science & Tech
9
Manufacturing Technology Deployment Group Inc

In its oversight, management and support role, the corporation shall: (a) manage and provide oversight and support of the national center for defense manufacturing and machining and advanced manufacturing international, inc.; (b) oversee…

Science & Tech
10
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
11
Floridamakes Inc

To improve the productivity and technological performance of small- and medium-sized manufacturers throughout the state of florida by providing business assessments, business networks, leadership and workforce training, and in-plant…

Education
12
Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc

Assist oregon manufacturing businesses with the implementation of advanced manufacturing practices.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Mexico Manufacturing Extension Partnership; the most unlike its peers is Worksystems 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

9 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. 9 of the 14 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE: $358,913 · OtherINDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTENew York City Industrial Technology Assistance Corporation: $339,374 · OtherNew York City Industrial Technology Assistance CorporationMONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $228,186 · OtherMONTANA STATE UNIVERSITYBOARD OF REGENTS NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION: $200,000 · OtherBOARD OF REGENTS NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATIONIOWA STATE UNIVERSITY: $194,449 · OtherIOWA STATE UNIVERSITYBoise State University: $175,806 · OtherBoise State UniversityHAWAII TECH: $73,400 · Other+1 more: $37,500 · OtherMANUFACTURING ADVOCACY & GROWTH NETWORK INC: $192,000 · Community ImprovementMANUFACTURING ADVO…CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING: $65,014 · Community ImprovementCALIFORNIA MANUFAC…South Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership: $60,750 · Community ImprovementSouth Carolina Man…NEW MEXICO MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP: $30,750 · Community ImprovementNEW MEXICO MANUFAC…Worksystems Inc: $162,823 · EmploymentILLINOIS MANUFACTURING EXCELLENCE CENTER: $27,000 · Human Services
Other$1,607,628Community Improvement$348,514Employment$162,823Human Services$27,000

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 budgetINDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE: $358,913 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetNew York City Industrial Technology Assistance Corporation: $339,374 over 3y, 6.3% of budgetMANUFACTURING ADVOCACY & GROWTH NETWORK INC: $192,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetWorksystems Inc: $162,823 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING: $65,014 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSouth Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership: $60,750 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetDELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER: $37,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetNEW MEXICO MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP: $30,750 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetILLINOIS MANUFACTURING EXCELLENCE CENTER: $27,000 over 2y, 0.2% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Pa Irc Network Founda…
Pa Irc Network FoundationPA15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Pa Irc Network 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 Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc. 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%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 55%
  • Worksystems Inc: 55% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 14 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 Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership’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