· Public charity
Women in Cable Telecommunications
The wict network develops women leaders who transform our industry.
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.
The 20 grants below total $200,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $230,000 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $30,000 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS GREATER TEXAS CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FLORIDA CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS GREATER PHILADELPHIA CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MIDWEST CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS WASHINGTON DCBALTIMORE CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAROLINAS CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEW YORK CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PACIFIC NORTHWEST CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS GREATER OHIO CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS VIRGINIA CHAPTER | $10,000 |
| WOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SOUTHEAST CHAPTER | $10,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 71% 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
Grants abroad, by region — $30k on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: PROGRAMMING SUPPORT
Stated purpose: PROGRAMMING SUPPORT
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. 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.
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.
21 repeat relationships — 20 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- WIWOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS5× · 2017–2025 · $65k
- WIWOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS5× · 2017–2025 · $65k
- WIWOMEN IN CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS4× · 2017–2025 · $55k
Funded once
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
Your grantees are a median of 16 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% 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 13% 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.
0 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. 0 of the 21 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.
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: 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.