Skip to content
Sustainable Manufacturing Innovation Alliance Corp at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Sustainable Manufacturing Innovation Alliance Corp

To create a consortium that focuses on reducing embodied-energy and decreasing emissions in materials manufacturing.

$11M
Granted FY2024still arriving
27
Grants FY2024still arriving
16
States reached
$1.7M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2024 · 27 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $45k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.4M
  • $250k+16 grants · $9.8M
$261,935
Median grant
16
States reached
$8.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$1,727,275
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY$1,415,415
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY$1,099,968
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL$956,658
SOLVUS GLOBAL$664,242
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS$565,144
UNIVERSITY OF AKRON$489,638
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA$468,701
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY$397,080
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$345,949
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY$318,134
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY$310,429
YALE UNIVERSITY$295,013
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY$261,935
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY$253,518
02The need
02

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 (FY24–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 91% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: $397k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL: $957k → 8%SOLVUS GLOBAL: $664k → 11%BRASKEM AMERICA INC: $209k → 11%THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $1.4M → 16%REJOULE INC: $201k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA: $469k → 14%ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $1.7M → 14%THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK: $115k → 14%AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL: $144k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: $252k → 15%WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $318k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $346k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $189k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: $45k → 11%YALE UNIVERSITY: $295k → 12%GEORGIA TECH: $52k → 13%PLASTILENE INC: $115k → 15%OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $1.1M → 15%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $129k → 19%NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: $310k → 14%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY: $262k → 21%SECAT INC: $122k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF AKRON: $490k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $565k → 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

IL
MI
NY
MA
IA
OH
PA
CT
CA
KY
WV
VA
AZ
SC
DC
GA
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 field
03the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 27 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)
5/5
Grantees still filing
3/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $1,415,415 · OtherPENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITYTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $1,099,968 · OtherTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: $956,658 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTSSOLVUS GLOBAL: $664,242 · OtherSOLVUS GLOBALTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $565,144 · OtherTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOISTHE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON: $489,638 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF AKRONUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA: $468,701 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARAARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: $397,080 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $345,949 · OtherWESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $318,134 · Other+13 more: $2,054,181 · Other+13 moreRochester Institute of Technology: $1,727,275 · EducationRochester Institute o…Yale University: $295,013 · EducationYale UniversityThe Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $114,872 · EducationThe Research Foundati…Northwestern University: $310,429 · Recreation & Sports
Other$8,775,110Education$2,137,160Recreation & Sports$310,429

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRochester Institute of Technology: $1,727,275 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNorthwestern University: $310,429 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYale University: $295,013 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL: $143,980 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $114,872 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds Rochester Institute of Technology ↗
  • Who funds Northwestern University ↗
  • Who funds Yale University ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds The Research Foundation for The State University of New York ↗

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.

American Chemical Soc…National Collegiate A…Folds of Honor Founda…Tulsa Community Found…
American Chemical SocietyDC13.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Chemical Society · National Collegiate Athletic Association · Folds of Honor Foundation · Tulsa Community 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 Sustainable Manufacturing Innovation Alliance Corp funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sustainable Manufacturing Innovation Alliance Corp. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Yale University: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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 27 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Sustainable Manufacturing Innovation Alliance’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