Skip to content
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants: funding profile →

Maryland · Public charity

The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc

The john r. Gentille foundation (jrgf) articulates and funds the mechanical contracting industry's most critical human resource and research needs. Jrgf cultivates and supports activities that allow professionals in the mechanical contracting (continued on schedule o) industry to succeed in their businesses.

$531k
Granted FY2017
2
Itemized grants FY2017
2
Organizations funded FY2017
Read the full brief
Itemized, FY2017
$200k
The rest is grants the schedule does not break out
Median grant, FY2017
$100,000
Largest grant, FY2017
$100,000
States reached, FY2017
1
Total assets, FY2017
$16M

Top grantees

Largest recipients by total granted, FY2017 to FY2017, and the share of each one’s budget the grants supplied at peak.

GranteeTotal grantedYearsShare of their budget
McAa Charitable Fund$100,0001n/a
Mechanical Contractors Association of America Inc$100,00011%

Compare The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc with peer funders

About The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc

How much does The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc give?
The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc reported 2 itemized grants totaling $200,000, out of $530,600 in total grant expense reported on the return in its FY2017 IRS filing.
What does The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc fund?
By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2017, its largest causes are Employment (50%), Public Safety & Disaster (50%).
Who are The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc's largest grantees?
By total granted over FY2017 to FY2017: McAa Charitable Fund ($100k), Mechanical Contractors Association of America Inc ($100k).
Where is The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc based?
The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc is based in MD.

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 2 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $576k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2017, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Mechanical Contracting’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