Skip to content
Computer and Communications Industry Association at a glance

· Public charity

Computer and Communications Industry Association

To further the interests of companies in the computer and communications industries, including the interests of our members, by being the leading advocate promoting open, barrier-free competition in the offering of computer and communications products and services worldwide.

$248k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Employment$745kCommunity Improvement$584kEducation$560kPublic Benefit$350kScience & Tech$335kInternational$100kCivil Rights$10kArts & Culture$9k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $185,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $247,516 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $62,516 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $35k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $150k
$150,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$33M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$150,000
COMMON CRAWL FOUNDATION$35,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 79% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BOSTON UNIVERSITY: $65k → 16%COMMON CRAWL FOUNDATION: $35k → 14%TEXAS 2036: $745k → 14%SHAKESPEARE THEATRE COMPANY: $9k → 14%INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & ECONOMICS: $100k → 12%GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $250k → 6%UNIFIED PATENTS: $100k → 14%GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $150k → 6%CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST: $50k → 14%GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $150k → 6%NETCHOICE: $519k → 14%TECHFREEDOM: $200k → 14%CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST: $200k → 14%TECHFREEDOM: $10k → 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.

Grants abroad, by region: $60k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$60k · 100% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: TO SUPPORT RECIPIENT'S RESEARCH TOWARD STRENGTHENING EU COMPETITIVENESS FOR DIGITAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. · TO SUPPORT RECIPIENT'S RESEARCH TOWARD SHARED LIABILITY REGIMES AND FINANCIAL FRAUD PROTECTION.

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

38%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 3 repeat orgs$1.7M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +16% since the first grant, against +13% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
8

Total granted

$1.0M
$1.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+13%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’19’20’22’23’24
Public BenefitEducationScience & TechCommunity ImprovementInternationalArts & CultureOther
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

  • GM
    GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $550k · revenue -16%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST
    2× · 2022–2023 · $250k · revenue +46%
  • T
    TECHFREEDOM
    2× · 2020–2023 · $210k · revenue +16%

Funded once

  • Texas 2036graduated
    one grant, 2022 · $745k · revenue +33%
  • N
    NetChoice
    one grant, 2022 · $519k · revenue -34%
  • UP
    UNIFIED PATENTS
    one grant, 2022 · $100k
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
Technology Policy Institute
International
2
Center for Democracy and Technology

Advocating for public policies that advance democratic values in the digital age.

Civil Rights
3
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
4
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Inc

International consortium of investigative journalists, inc.'s (icij) mission is to show people how the world really works through stories that rock the world; forcing positive change.

International
5
Pew Research Center

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. Pew Research Center generates a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and…

Social Science
6
Council On Foreign Relations Inc

The council on foreign relations (cfr) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and…

International
7
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Competitive enterprise institute (cei) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. we believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being…

—
8
Electronic Privacy Information Center

Epic's mission is to secure the fundamental right to privacy in the digital age for all people through advocacy, research, and litigation.

Civil Rights
9
Peter G Peterson Institute for International Economics

The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…

Social Science
10
Global Policy Forum Inc

Research and education of United Nations activities

International
11
Us - China Policy Foundation
—
12
Dc Policy Center

The mission of the d.c. policy center is to arm decision makers with fact-based, unbiased, and reliable research and analyses to help create a vibrant local economy that can maximize opportunities for residents, workers, and businesses in…

Public Benefit
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Techfreedom; the most unlike its peers is Commoncrawl Foundation. 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

10 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. 10 of the 12 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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Texas 2036: $745,000 · Public BenefitTexas 2036CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST: $250,000 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR THE NATIONAL INTERESTINTERNATIONAL POLICY NETWORK US INC: $100,000 · Public BenefitINTERNATIONAL POLICY NETWORK US INCGEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $550,000 · EducationGEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY…+1 more: $10,000 · EducationNetChoice: $518,750 · Community ImprovementNetChoiceTECHFREEDOM: $210,000 · Science & TechTECHFREEDO…Commoncrawl Foundation: $35,000 · Science & TechCommoncraw…UNIFIED PATENTS: $100,000 · OtherBOSTON UNIVERSITY: $65,000 · OtherCENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: $100,000 · InternationalTHE SHAKESPEARE THEATRE: $8,778 · Arts & Culture
Public Benefit$1,095,000Education$560,000Community Improvement$518,750Science & Tech$245,000Other$165,000International$100,000Arts & Culture$8,778

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTexas 2036: $745,000 over 1y, 8.1% of budgetGEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $550,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetNetChoice: $518,750 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetCENTER FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST: $250,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetTECHFREEDOM: $210,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetCENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: $100,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetINTERNATIONAL POLICY NETWORK US INC: $100,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetCommoncrawl Foundation: $35,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetSAN DIEGO PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE SHAKESPEARE THEATRE: $8,778 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
National Philanthropic TrustPA7.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Computer and Communications Industry Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Computer and Communications Industry Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Computer and Communications Industry Association?

    Find your warmest path to Computer and Communications Industry Association through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 12 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 Computer and Communications Industry Association’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