· Public charity
The Wireless Foundation
THE WIRELESS FOUNDATION advances positive social impact fueled by innovative wireless technology in american communities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $340,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $433,000 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $93,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k8 grants · $165k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $175k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UPCHIEVE | $111,800 |
| HEALTHY HIP HOP FOUNDATION | $62,800 |
| BEFOREWEBEGIN INC | $38,400 |
| CAMELBACK VENTURES | $25,000 |
| FAST FORWARD | $25,000 |
| PATIENTORY INC | $16,000 |
| PALMPLUG | $16,000 |
| OBJECTIVE ZERO FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
| STORYUP INC | $15,000 |
| KAI XR FUTURES INC | $15,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY21–23, $119k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +165% since the first grant, against +72% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 24% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $260k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- FFFWD5× · 2020–2024 · $225k · revenue +490%
- OZOBJECTIVE ZERO FOUNDATION5× · 2020–2024 · $189k · revenue +10%
- OOKAYSO2× · 2021–2023 · $49k · revenue +165%
Funded once
- RRETHINKone grant, 2023 · $118k
- DNDOPE NERDSone grant, 2023 · $73k
- BBLOOMLIFEone grant, 2021 · $55k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.
mohuman enables people, governments, organizations, and companies to easily and inclusively engage each other in technology and science decision-making.
Knowledge futures is an independent nonprofit organization that builds and supports tools, products, and protocols to make knowledge open, useful, and accessible.
We apply our passion for technology to the challenge of improving global health for the world's most resource-limited communities.
Id2020 brings together diverse voices to set technical requirements, influence policy, and accelerate the implementation of digital id programs that benefit the most vulnerable.
Watsi, inc. is a san francisco-based non-profit organization that directly connects people through technology to fund life-changing healthcare for patients around the world. since launching in 2012, the organization has helped more than…
employU is a nonprofit disability employment service creating an inclusive workforce for people with disabilities through education, empowerment, and advocacy.
To develop a health care system where patients, clinicians, health care policymakers, and payers have the evidence they need to make informed health decisions.
Idealware provides impartial, thoroughly researched, and easy to
1. to support the educational, research, and healthcare mission of the medical university of south carolina (musc) by fostering creativity and innovation. 2. to initiate and sustain cooperation and collaboration between musc and business…
Unitedly is a nonprofit organization based in San Mateo County, California. Unitedly was established to ensure Asian families and communities have access to equitable opportunities and resources to thrive in the San Francisco Bay Area.
4YouandMe is a nonprofit biomedical research organization created to change how individuals could improve their lives with chronic diseases. We were founded to tackle the fundamental unknowns using smart phones and wearables to enable…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Maryland College Park Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Kai Xr Futures Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 28 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds FFWD ↗
- Who funds CAMELBACK VENTURES ↗
- Who funds OBJECTIVE ZERO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds mRelief ↗
- Who funds UPCHIEVE INC ↗
- Who funds OKAYSO ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - GREEN BAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CURAJOY ↗
- Who funds THE PATIENTORY FOUNDATION LTD ↗
- Who funds KAI XR FUTURES INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Impactassetsinc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Wireless Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.