Skip to content
American Council of Engineering Companies of California at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

American Council of Engineering Companies of California

To strengthen California's engineering and surveying business to build a better California.

$159k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
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.

Community Improvement$500kPublic Benefit$290kEmployment$276kEducation$260kCivil Rights$160kEnvironment$60kReligion$50kHousing & Shelter$25kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $141,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $158,844 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $17,844 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–50k3 grants · $41k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$16,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Climate Safe Infrastructure$50,000
San Diego All for Traffic Rel$50,000
JobsPAC$16,000
California Issues Forum$15,000
Californians for Safe Drinkng$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 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%CA Tax & Budget Research Proj: $25k → 8%ACEC CA Orange County: $7k → 10%Coalition to Protect Local Tr: $275k → 12%CA Tax & Budget Research Proj: $25k → 8%Coalition to Protect Local Tr: $150k → 12%JobsPAC: $125k → 12%Citizens to Protect CA Infr: $100k → 12%Governor Newsoms Ballot Meas: $100k → 12%JobsPAC: $55k → 12%Self Help Counties Coalition: $50k → 12%Friends of Josh Newman: $50k → 12%San Diego All for Traffic Rel: $50k → 12%Comm for a Better Sacramento: $50k → 12%Calif for Fair Pay & Empl: $50k → 12%Climate Safe Infrastructure: $50k → 12%ACEC CA Scholarship Fdn: $40k → 12%JobsPAC: $30k → 12%California Issues Forum: $30k → 12%California for Safe Schools: $25k → 12%ACEC CA Scholarship Fdn: $20k → 12%JobsPAC: $16k → 12%Transportation California: $15k → 12%California Issues Forum: $15k → 12%California Issues Forum: $15k → 12%California Issues Forum: $15k → 12%California Issues Forum: $15k → 12%Committee for Clean Water: $10k → 12%Transportation California: $10k → 12%CA for Quality Schools: $125k → 12%Affordable Housing Now: $25k → 12%Californians for Safe Drinkng: $50k → 12%Californians for Safe Drinkng: $10k → 12%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.
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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$936k · 7 repeat orgs$698k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +65% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
12

Total granted

$936k
$598k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+65%
0%

Still filing today

43%
42%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 29% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k 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
EducationCommunity ImprovementPublic BenefitEnvironmentCivil RightsOther
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

  • CI
    CALIFORNIA ISSUES FORUM
    5× · 2018–2025 · $90k · revenue +72%
  • AC
    ACEC California Scholarship Foundation
    2× · 2019–2021 · $60k · revenue +65% · 45% of their budget
  • TC
    TRANSPORTATION CALIFORNIA
    2× · 2021–2022 · $25k · revenue +116%

Funded once

  • CF
    CA for Quality Schools
    one grant, 2017 · $125k
  • CT
    Citizens to Protect CA Infr
    one grant, 2017 · $100k
  • GN
    Governor Newsoms Ballot Measure Committee
    one grant, 2024 · $100k · revenue 0%
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
Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability

To support policies and ballot measures to curb increases in taxes throughout the state of California, including the qualification and passage of a proposed statewide initiative relating to the imposition of taxes and fees (California…

—
2
Californians to Stop Higher Property Taxes

To educate the public and policy makers about the history and purpose of California's property tax law.

—
3
Californians Against Higher Taxes

Communications to Californians on state legislation that expands taxation

—
4
Clean Safe & Affordable Energy Yes on a

To run a campaign in support of San Francisco, CA Measure A.

—
5
Citizens for Affordable Housing a Coalition of Nonprofit Housing Adv

To oppose Measure C proposed to voters of the City of Sacramento on the November 3, 2020, ballot.

—
6
Californians Against Job Losses and Higher Prices

Oppose Proposition 32 in the State of California on the November 5, 2024 ballot.

—
7
No on 30
—
8
Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable Accessible Transportation

Support the passage of local transportation bond initiative in San Francisco.

—
9
Coalition to Protect Riders and Drivers sponsored by the Ca Labor Federation Afl-Cio

To oppose the adoption of a statewide ballot measure that would change employment classification rules for app-based transportation and delivery drivers.

—
10
California Research Project

To conduct socio-economic demographic research, analysis, and advocacy related to communities of interest and voting rights in California.

—
11
Californians for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools

To support policies and ballot measures to increase funding and awareness of the importance of arts and music education in public schools.

—
12
Friends of Contra Costa Transportation

Educate voters on the benefits of passing Measure J in Contra Costa County election in June 2020.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Californians for Safe Reliable Infrastructure; the most unlike its peers is Californians for Safe Drinking Water and. 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

15 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. 15 of the 21 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/15
Grantees still filing
7/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JobsPAC: $226,000 · OtherJobsPACCA for Quality Schools: $125,000 · OtherCA for Quality SchoolsCitizens to Protect CA Infr: $100,000 · OtherCitizens to Protect CA InfrGovernor Newsoms Ballot Measure Committee: $100,000 · OtherGovernor Newsoms Ballot Measure CommitteeCalifornians for Safe Drinking Water and: $60,000 · OtherCalifornians for Safe Drinking Water andCOMMITTEE FOR A BETTER SACRAMENTO: $50,000 · OtherClimate Safe Infrastructure: $50,000 · OtherFriends of Josh Newman: $50,000 · OtherSelf Help Counties Coalition: $50,000 · OtherCalifornians for Fair Pay and Employer Accountability: $50,000 · Other+5 more: $88,000 · Other+5 moreCalifornians for Safe Reliable Infrastructure: $425,000 · Community ImprovementCalifornians for Safe Reliabl…ACEC California Scholarship Foundation: $60,000 · EducationSAN DIEGO ALLIANCE FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF RELIABLE TRANSIT & JOBS: $50,000 · EducationCALIFORNIA ISSUES FORUM: $90,000 · Public BenefitCalifornia Tax and Budget Research Project: $50,000 · Civil RightsCOMMITTEE FOR CLEAN WATER NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS: $10,000 · Environment
Other$949,000Community Improvement$425,000Education$110,000Public Benefit$90,000Civil Rights$50,000Environment$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCalifornians for Safe Reliable Infrastructure: $425,000 over 2y, 63% of budgetGovernor Newsoms Ballot Measure Committee: $100,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA ISSUES FORUM: $90,000 over 5y, 3.4% of budgetCalifornians for Safe Drinking Water and: $60,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetACEC California Scholarship Foundation: $60,000 over 2y, 45% of budgetCalifornia Tax and Budget Research Project: $50,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetSelf Help Counties Coalition: $50,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetCalifornians for Fair Pay and Employer Accountability: $50,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetTRANSPORTATION CALIFORNIA: $25,000 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetCAS For Safe Schools and Healthy Learning Governor Newsoms BMC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER: $6,500 over 1y, 5.1% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization American Council of Engineering Companies of California funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from American Council of Engineering Companies of California. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%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
    0get no government money at all
    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 21 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 American Council of Engineering Companies of California’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