Skip to content
Pa Irc Network Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Pa Irc Network Foundation

To support the collaboration among independent not for profit economic development subcontractors for the purpose of enhancing and supporting the competitive ability of small and medium sized manufacturers by helping them to identify, assess, select, implement, and optimize techniques and technologies.

$6.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
27
Grants FY2025still arriving
18
States reached
$1.5M
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$51MScience & Tech$4.6MEmployment$575kEducation$138k
02FY2025 · 27 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k20 grants · $500k
  • $250k+7 grants · $6.0M
$25,000
Median grant
18
States reached
$558k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER (DVIRC)$1,498,440
CATALYST CONNECTION$1,240,340
MANTEC INC$808,214
NORTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER$801,193
MANUFACTURERS RESOURCE CENTER$704,128
NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER$534,862
INNOVATIVE MANUFACTURERS' CENTER$427,474
MISSOURI ENTERPRISE$25,000
POLARIS(URI)$25,000
ILLINOIS MANUFACTURING EXCELLENCE CENTER$25,000
PURDUE UNIVERSITY$25,000
CIFT$25,000
GENEDGE$25,000
NEW JERSEY MEP$25,000
FLORIDAMAKES INC$25,000
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 (FY25–25, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ILLINOIS MANUFACTURING EXCELLENCE CENTER: $25k → 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

WA
MT
IL
NY
MA
SD
IN
OH
PA
NJ
RI
CA
UT
CO
MO
VA
AR
SC
OK
AL
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$56M · 15 repeat orgs$475k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +47% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
19

Total granted

$56M
$475k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
0%

Still filing today

80%
68%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $475k 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 ImprovementScience & TechEducationSocial ScienceHuman ServicesOther
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

  • DV
    DELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $14M · revenue +24% · 25% of their budget
  • CC
    CATALYST CONNECTION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $13M · revenue +99% · 26% of their budget
  • NP
    NORTHWEST PA INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $6.9M · revenue +64% · 43% of their budget

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND RESEARCH FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2025 · $25k · revenue 0%
  • TO
    TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2025 · $25k
  • G
    GENEDGE
    one grant, 2025 · $25k
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
Enterprise Minnesota

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

Public Benefit
2
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
3
Manufacturing Extension Partnership of New Hampshire Inc

Furtherance of the dept of commerce nist mep program

Employment
4
Industrial Technology Institute

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

—
5
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
6
Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc

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

Community Improvement
7
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
8
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

The mission is to lead the rapid development of cross-industry R&D programs to build the global competitiveness of its manufacturing partners.

Community Improvement
9
The Manufacturing Academy
Employment
10
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
11
Connstep Inc

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

Community Improvement
12
Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing

Ccam was created for the purpose of conducting transformational scientific research with respect to the development of manufacturing technologies. ccam seeks to bridge the gap between laboratory research and the development of…

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Catalyst Connection; the most unlike its peers is Fuzehub 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

25 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. 25 of the 34 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/25
Grantees still filing
10/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER: $13,613,461 · OtherDELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTERMANUFACTURERS RESOURCE CENTER: $5,843,444 · OtherMANUFACTURERS RESOURCE CENTERINNOVATIVE MANUFACTURERS CENTER INC: $3,808,729 · OtherINNOVATIVE MANUFACTURERS CENTER INC+10 more: $388,301 · OtherMANTEC INC: $7,056,114 · Community ImprovementMANTEC INCNORTHWEST PA INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER INC: $6,871,791 · Community ImprovementNORTHWEST PA INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER…NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL RES RESOURCE CENTER INC: $4,879,592 · Community ImprovementNORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL RE…+11 more: $950,012 · Community ImprovementCATALYST CONNECTION: $12,604,589 · Science & TechCATALYST CONNECTION+1 more: $25,000 · Science & TechWASHINGTON MANUFACTURING SERVICES: $138,989 · EducationFLORIDAMAKES INC: $25,000 · EducationCENTER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH INC: $25,000 · Social ScienceNEXTCORPS INC: $25,000 · Social ScienceILLINOIS MANUFACTURING EXCELLENCE CENTER: $25,000 · Human Services
Other$23,653,935Community Improvement$19,757,509Science & Tech$12,629,589Education$163,989Social Science$50,000Human Services$25,000

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 budgetDELAWARE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER: $13,613,461 over 9y, 25% of budgetCATALYST CONNECTION: $12,604,589 over 9y, 26% of budgetMANTEC INC: $7,056,114 over 9y, 48% of budgetNORTHWEST PA INDUSTRIAL RESOURCE CENTER INC: $6,871,791 over 9y, 43% of budgetMANUFACTURERS RESOURCE CENTER: $5,843,444 over 9y, 26% of budgetNORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL RES RESOURCE CENTER INC: $4,879,592 over 9y, 30% of budgetINNOVATIVE MANUFACTURERS CENTER INC: $3,808,729 over 9y, 33% of budgetMANUFACTURING ADVOCACY & GROWTH NETWORK INC: $269,963 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetTECHSOLVE INC: $215,436 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING: $159,300 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetWASHINGTON MANUFACTURING SERVICES: $138,989 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetFUZEHUB INC: $130,313 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCIFT: $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMANUFACTURER'S EDGE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetILLINOIS MANUFACTURING EXCELLENCE CENTER: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOKLAHOMA ALLIANCE FOR MANUFACTURING EXCELLENCE INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetMISSOURI INCUTECH FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetSouth Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNEXTCORPS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Missouri Incutech Fou…Irc Network IncOregon Manufacturing …Jobs for the Future I…Fidelity Investments …
Missouri Incutech FoundationMO30.6× affinity12 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Missouri Incutech Foundation · Irc Network Inc · Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership Inc · Jobs for the Future 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 Pa Irc Network Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pa Irc Network Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 81%
  • Floridamakes Inc: 93% of income from government
  • New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program Incorporated: 81% of income from government
  • Oklahoma Alliance for Manufacturing Excellence Inc: 46% of income from government
  • Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership: 25% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
11report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
2rely 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 34 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 Pa Irc Network’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