· Private foundation
W C Sharp Scholarship
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SCOTT SARI CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| KEEGAN FOOTE CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| CYNTHIA MIRANDA CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| ISABELLA COMPITELLO CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| GRANT RUPINSKI CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| SAMANTHA CUSHING CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| GRACE IOVINE CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| JONAH KRINIC CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| RICHARD RYON CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| ALYSSA RIGBY CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| CONNOR CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| BRENDAN MCCORMICK CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| LILY PLESNIARSKI CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| JASON THOMAS FARNUNG CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
| KYLE SKIENDZIELEWSKI CO PNC BANK | $3,060 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 93% of your 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.
14 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 25 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $77k went to new ones.
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
- TTTHE TRUSTEES OF THE STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY2× · 2017–2019 · $7k · revenue +74%
- PUPACE UNIVERSITY2× · 2017–2019 · $5k · revenue +24%
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH3× · 2017–2019 · $4k · revenue +44%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $69k
Vanderbilt Universitygraduatedone grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +74%- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $5k
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.
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…
Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…
Western new england university, a comprehensive private institution with a tradition of excellence in teaching and scholarship and a commitment to service, awards undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in various departments from…
See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.
Wake Forest University, a 501(c)(3) institution of higher education, is dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the liberal arts and in graduate and professional education. The organization is comprised of seven constituent parts: Wake…
Endicott college offers students a vibrant academic environment that remains true to its founding principle of integrating professional and liberal arts with experiential learning. for more information see schedule o.
Fairleigh dickinson university is a center of academic excellence dedicated to the preparation of world citizens through global education. the university strives to provide students with the multi-disciplinary, intercultural, and ethical…
Seton hall university is a catholic institution of higher education
Dickinson college provides a useful, innovative and interdisciplinary education in the liberal arts and sciences to prepare students to lead rich and fulfilling lives of engaged global citizenship
To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.
As a diverse community of learners, we cultivate integrity, curiosity, connection and resilience.
As a Catholic, Jesuit university our mission is to search for truth, discover shareknowledge, foster personal professional excellence, promote a life of faith and developleadership expressed in service to others. See Schedule O.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Delaware and the most unlike its peers is Thomas Jefferson University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 80 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 9% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
24 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. 24 of the 182 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 THE TRUSTEES OF THE STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds PACE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds RIDER UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Vanderbilt University ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
- Who funds MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY INC ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc
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 W C Sharp Scholarship 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 26% of income from government
- University of Delaware — 25% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 12% of income from government
- The Trustees of the Stevens Institute of Technology — 12% of income from government
- Rider University — 1% of income from government
- The Trustees of Mount Holyoke College — 0% of income from government
- Monmouth University Inc — 0% of income from government
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.