Loading…
Loading…
Minnesota · Nonprofit
Technical Academies of Minnesota (Minnesota) is funded by 3 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $32,500 in grants to it, the largest being COMMUNITYGIVING ($22,500). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Technical Academies of Minnesota runs a healthier operating margin than half of the 11,390 education nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 11,390 education nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2023
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
99% of Technical Academies of Minnesota’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (49% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$0 from 1 funders in 2024, up from $0 and 1 in 2021.
1 of 3 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 69% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of Technical Academies of Minnesota’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 2 of 3 funders by total. Association, not causation.
Technical Academies of Minnesota leans on a few funders — its largest provides 69% of grant income and the top three 100%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
Technical Academies of Minnesota is locally rooted: 69% of its grant income comes from Minnesota funders.
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first. Your 3 funders put you under-funded among the 400 organizations that share them.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $51k on record.
Federal grants vs contracts are distinguished; state line items keep their reported category. Matched by name + geography (the BMF), so coverage is partial and precision-first.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
87% of spending goes to programs.
Operates in 1 state
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2018–2023), and the filings of 3funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing