Skip to content
National Center for Women and Information Technology at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

National Center for Women and Information Technology

The mission of the NATIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY is to widen inclusion in the technology ecosystem through innovative programs and research.

$3.9M
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$3.0M
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.

Education$24MPhilanthropy$793kHealth$741kEmployment$260kCommunity Improvement$195kYouth Development$168kArts & Culture$158kFood & Nutrition$154kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $3,370,860, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,891,403 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $520,543 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
  • $250k+2 grants · $3.4M
$351,360
Median grant
4
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION$2,999,500
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$351,360
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY$10,000
INDIANA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$10,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 70% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SENIOR MANAGEMENT: $100k → 8%PITTSBURGH TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL: $28k → 11%MITCHELL KAPOR FOUNDATION: $654k → 10%CORNELL UNIVERSITY: $240k → 16%FLATIRONS SCHOOL: $430k → 17%NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: $50k → 20%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $32k → 16%UF FOUNDATION INC: $99k → 19%MOBI BOOT CAMP CORP: $37k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $95k → 14%GRAND CIRCUS DETROIT: $1.1M → 21%MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $50k → 17%GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $351k → 13%AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $456k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER: $50k → 12%TECH ELEVATOR INC: $47k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA-CHAMPAIGN: $100k → 19%EVERYBODY CODE NOW: $30k → 4%CENTER FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP: $30k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $56k → 8%DIGITAL HARBOR FOUNDATION: $350k → 19%PITTSBURGH TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL: $28k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $90k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE FOUNDATION: $500k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY: $50k → 10%KIPP FOUNDATION: $394k → 10%CORNELL UNIVERSITY: $240k → 16%FLATIRONS SCHOOL: $90k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $62k → 14%GRAND CIRCUS DETROIT: $200k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM: $125k → 16%GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $171k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $48k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION: $40k → 11%KIPP FOUNDATION: $107k → 10%NEO PHILANTHROPY: $123k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR: $50k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM: $52k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $80k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $29k → 8%MODERN FIGURES INC: $37k → 19%GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $254k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $67k → 9%POMONA COLLEGE: $50k → 14%INNOVATE BIRMINGHAM: $76k → 16%TECH BIRMINGHAM: $45k → 16%INNOVATE BIRMINGHAM: $43k → 16%TECH BIRMINGHAM: $32k → 16%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

NH
WA
ID
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
TN
NC
SC
DC
OK
LA
MS
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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$23M · 55 repeat orgs$3.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against +29% for those funded once.

55 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 53 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

55
117

Total granted

$23M
$3.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+29%

Still filing today

51%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
EducationEmploymentCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentPhilanthropyPublic BenefitOther
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION
    7× · 2017–2025 · $17M · revenue +79%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE FOUNDATION
    4× · 2017–2021 · $556k · revenue +51%
  • GT
    GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION
    3× · 2018–2025 · $530k · revenue +54%

Funded once

  • MK
    MITCHELL KAPOR FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2020 · $654k · revenue -87%
  • AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $456k · revenue +36%
  • DH
    DIGITAL HARBOR FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $350k · revenue +863%
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
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
2
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
3
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
4
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
5
Point Park University

Provides innovative education in a dynamic urban setting. dedicated to academic excellence and community engagement,we prepare students of diverse backgrounds with the knowledge, skill,and experience to lead meaningful lives as informed…

—
6
Trustees of Dartmouth College

Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.

Education
7
Pacific University

A diverse and sustainable learning community dedicated to discovery and excellence in teaching, scholarship and practice, pacific university inspires students to think, care, create and pursue justice in our world.

Education
8
Augustana College

Rooted in the liberal arts & sciences & lutheran expression of the christian faith, & is committed to offering a challenging education that develops qualities of mind, spirit, & body necessary for a rewarding life of leadership & service…

Education
9
President and Fellows of Harvard College

Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.

Education
10
Widener University

Empowering our community of learners to discover and create better futures.

Education
11
Manhattanville University

To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.

Education
12
DePauw University

Depauw university develops leaders the world needs through an uncommon commitment to the liberal arts. depauw's diverse and inclusive learning and living experience, distinctive in its rigorous intellectual engagement and its global and…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgia Tech Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Mitchell Kapor 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

100 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. 100 of the 177 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
97/100
Grantees still filing
81/100
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $16,816,995 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION+79 more: $4,183,393 · Education+79 moreGRAND CIRCUS DETROIT: $1,266,400 · OtherGRAND CIRCUS DET…FLATIRONS SCHOOL: $520,031 · OtherFLATIRONS SCHOOLREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $216,947 · OtherREGENTS OF THE U…UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $197,635 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM: $176,700 · OtherRECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $161,585 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO: $156,034 · Other+75 more: $1,110,358 · Other+75 moreMITCHELL KAPOR FOUNDATION: $653,599 · Philanthropy+1 more: $10,000 · PhilanthropyGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $530,208 · Health+1 more: $6,000 · HealthINNOVATE BIRMINGHAM: $118,200 · EmploymentINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SENIOR MANAGEMENT FORUM: $100,000 · Employment+2 more: $12,600 · EmploymentTECHBIRMINGHAM: $86,920 · Community ImprovementFORTYX80 INC: $68,750 · Community ImprovementAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN GREENSBORO BRA: $53,000 · Community ImprovementNEO Philanthropy Inc: $123,272 · Public BenefitGIRL SCOUTS OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN NJ: $30,600 · Youth DevelopmentLATINITAS INC: $14,100 · Youth DevelopmentGIRL SCOUTS OF THE GREEN AND WHITE MTNS: $7,000 · Youth Development
Education$21,000,388Other$3,805,690Philanthropy$663,599Health$536,208Employment$230,800Community Improvement$208,670Public Benefit$123,272Youth Development$51,700

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $16,816,995 over 7y, 1.6% of budgetMITCHELL KAPOR FOUNDATION: $653,599 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE FOUNDATION: $555,876 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $530,208 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetKIPP FOUNDATION: $501,086 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCornell University: $479,720 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $456,400 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetDIGITAL HARBOR FOUNDATION: $350,000 over 1y, 5.8% of budgetGEORGIA TECH FOUNDATION INC: $253,550 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $123,272 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES FOUNDATION: $121,266 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetINNOVATE BIRMINGHAM: $118,200 over 2y, 12% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $114,442 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetUniversity of Illinois Foundation: $110,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SENIOR MANAGEMENT FORUM: $100,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $100,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION INC: $94,675 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTECHBIRMINGHAM: $86,920 over 3y, 16% of budgetFORTYX80 INC: $68,750 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetNew York University: $60,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN GREENSBORO BRA: $53,000 over 5y, 43% of budgetMILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPOMONA COLLEGE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP: $40,000 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN NJ: $30,600 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDREXEL UNIVERSITY: $29,600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGIA GWINNETT COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $26,300 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $25,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCALVIN UNIVERSITY: $23,988 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetKEAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $23,400 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetRUTGERS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $22,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBRENTWOOD SCHOOL: $21,600 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCOLLEGE OF ST SCHOLASTICA INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of South Florida Foundation Inc: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSouthern New Hampshire University: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKNOX COLLEGE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSTONY BROOK FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFairleigh Dickinson University: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY: $18,225 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $17,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMOREHOUSE COLLEGE: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCODELLA ORG INC: $14,700 over 2y, 7.9% of budgetLEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE: $14,300 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLATINITAS INC: $14,100 over 1y, 2.5% 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.

Folds of Honor Founda…American Chemical Soc…National Collegiate A…World Learning IncTulsa Community Found…National Collegiate I…Educational Credit Ma…Hispanic Scholarship …Association of Univer…Kpmg US Foundation IncNational Fish and Wil…American Association …
Folds of Honor FoundationOK32.4× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Folds of Honor Foundation · American Chemical Society · National Collegiate Athletic Association · World Learning Inc · Tulsa Community Foundation · National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance Inc · Educational Credit Management Corporation · Hispanic Scholarship Fund · Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy Inc · Kpmg US Foundation Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · American Association of Colleges of Nursing

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 National Center for Women and Information Technology funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Center for Women and Information Technology. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 80%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • University of Delaware: 30% of income from government
  • Trustees of Tufts College: 13% of income from government
  • The Trustees of Princeton University: 11% of income from government
  • Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Inc: 3% of income from government
  • Fairleigh Dickinson University: 2% of income from government
  • Digital Harbor Foundation: 2% of income from government
  • Lewis & Clark College: 2% of income from government
  • Willamette University: 1% of income from government
  • Reed Institute: 1% of income from government
  • Collegiate Pathways Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Rutgers University Foundation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
8get no government money at all
12report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely 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 177 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 National Center for Women and Information Technology’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