Skip to content
The Wireless Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Wireless Foundation

THE WIRELESS FOUNDATION advances positive social impact fueled by innovative wireless technology in american communities.

$433k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$112k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Health$570kPhilanthropy$225kCommunity Improvement$221kEducation$177kHuman Services$135kSocial Science$118kYouth Development$111kAnimals$67kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $340,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $433,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $93,000 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–50k8 grants · $165k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $175k
$25,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$36M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UPCHIEVE$111,800
HEALTHY HIP HOP FOUNDATION$62,800
BEFOREWEBEGIN INC$38,400
FAST FORWARD$25,000
CAMELBACK VENTURES$25,000
PATIENTORY INC$16,000
PALMPLUG$16,000
KAI XR FUTURES INC$15,000
OBJECTIVE ZERO FOUNDATION$15,000
STORYUP INC$15,000
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:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MRELIEF: $104k → 14%MRELIEF: $10k → 14%MRELIEF: $5k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
NV
NJ
RI
CA
MO
VA
MD
DE
DC
LA
GA
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.

62%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 12 repeat orgs$687k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +165% since the first grant, against +72% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
10

Total granted

$1.1M
$427k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+165%
+72%

Still filing today

50%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 24% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $260k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHealthPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesArts & 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

  • F
    FFWD
    5× · 2020–2024 · $225k · revenue +490%
  • OZ
    OBJECTIVE ZERO FOUNDATION
    5× · 2020–2024 · $189k · revenue +10%
  • O
    OKAYSO
    2× · 2021–2023 · $49k · revenue +165%

Funded once

  • R
    RETHINK
    one grant, 2023 · $118k
  • DN
    DOPE NERDS
    one grant, 2023 · $73k
  • B
    BLOOMLIFE
    one grant, 2021 · $55k
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
Upturn Inc

Upturn advances equity and justice in the design, governance, and use of technology.

—
2
Mohuman

mohuman enables people, governments, organizations, and companies to easily and inclusively engage each other in technology and science decision-making.

Science & Tech
3
IDENTITY2020 Systems Inc

Id2020 brings together diverse voices to set technical requirements, influence policy, and accelerate the implementation of digital id programs that benefit the most vulnerable.

—
4
Knowledge Futures Inc

Knowledge futures is an independent nonprofit organization that builds and supports tools, products, and protocols to make knowledge open, useful, and accessible.

Human Services
5
Watsi Inc

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…

Health
6
Audere

We apply our passion for technology to the challenge of improving global health for the world's most resource-limited communities.

—
7
Employu Inc

employU is a nonprofit disability employment service creating an inclusive workforce for people with disabilities through education, empowerment, and advocacy.

Employment
8
The Center for Medical Technology Policy Inc

To develop a health care system where patients, clinicians, health care policymakers, and payers have the evidence they need to make informed health decisions.

—
9
Idealware Inc

Idealware provides impartial, thoroughly researched, and easy to

—
10
Musc Foundation for Research Development

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…

Health
11
Unitedly

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.

Human Services
12
Center for the Future of Learning

The Center for the Future of Learning empowers a vibrant learning ecosystem connecting communities to create future-focused solutions for today while sharing effective practices to advance tomorrow. The Center for the Future of Learning…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Maryland College Park Foundation Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 28 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KAI XR: $118,600 · OtherKAI XRRETHINK: $117,500 · OtherRETHINKDOPE NERDS: $72,700 · OtherDOPE NERDSPARROTS INC: $66,800 · OtherPARROTS INCHEALTHY HIP HOP FOUNDATION: $62,800 · OtherHEALTHY HIP HOP FOUNDATIONSTORYUP INC: $57,800 · OtherSTORYUP INCBLOOMLIFE: $54,500 · OtherBLOOMLIFEMindright Health Inc: $50,000 · OtherMindright Health IncOXIWEAR INC: $42,600 · OtherBEFOREWEBEGIN INC: $38,400 · Other+7 more: $140,000 · Other+7 moreUPCHIEVE INC: $111,800 · EducationUPCHIEVE INCOKAYSO: $49,300 · EducationOKAYSOUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - GREEN BAY FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF …UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF …KAI XR FUTURES INC: $15,000 · EducationKAI XR FUTURES…FFWD: $225,000 · PhilanthropyFFWDOBJECTIVE ZERO FOUNDATION: $188,550 · HealthOBJECTIVE ZE…THE PATIENTORY FOUNDATION LTD: $16,000 · HealthTHE PATIENTO…CAMELBACK VENTURES: $200,000 · Community ImprovementCAMELBACK VE…mRelief: $119,200 · Human ServicesCURAJOY: $21,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$821,700Education$226,100Philanthropy$225,000Health$204,550Community Improvement$200,000Human Services$119,200Arts & Culture$21,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFFWD: $225,000 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetCAMELBACK VENTURES: $200,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetOBJECTIVE ZERO FOUNDATION: $188,550 over 5y, 20% of budgetmRelief: $119,200 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetUPCHIEVE INC: $111,800 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetOKAYSO: $49,300 over 2y, 15% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - GREEN BAY FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCURAJOY: $21,000 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetKAI XR FUTURES INC: $15,000 over 1y, 43% 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.

  • 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 WISCONSIN - GREEN BAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CURAJOY ↗
  • Who funds THE PATIENTORY FOUNDATION LTD ↗
  • Who funds KAI XR FUTURES INC ↗

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.

ImpactassetsincGs Donor Advised Phil…Silicon Valley Commun…The Blackbaud Giving …Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
ImpactassetsincMD10.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 The Wireless Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Wireless Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 28 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 Wireless’ 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