· Public charity
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
To lead efforts to improve air quality, protect the public from exposure to harmful air pollutants and to provide assistance and leadership to districts and others working to attain state and federal air quality standards throughout california.
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $18k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $22k
- $50k–250k9 grants · $1.6M
- $250k+7 grants · $3.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MOJAVE DESERT AQMD | $783,212 |
| SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY APCD | $743,501 |
| SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY APCD | $567,703 |
| NORTHERN SIERRA AQMD | $566,634 |
| YOLO-SOLANO AQMD | $382,615 |
| SISKIYOU COUNTY APCD | $357,431 |
| PLACER COUNTY APCD | $290,610 |
| BUTTE COUNTY AQMD | $240,608 |
| NORTH COAST UNIFIED APCD | $227,769 |
| SHASTA COUNTY AQMD | $227,256 |
| EASTERN KERN APCD | $224,002 |
| SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD | $157,476 |
| TEHAMA COUNTY APCD | $157,432 |
| MENDOCINO COUNTY AQMD | $157,431 |
| IMPERIAL COUNTY APCD | $89,980 |
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 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 70% 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.
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.
28 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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; $23k 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
- SLSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY APCD9× · 2017–2025 · $1.9M
- MDMOJAVE DESERT AQMD9× · 2017–2025 · $1.8M
- NSNORTHERN SIERRA AQMD9× · 2017–2025 · $1.7M
Funded once
- RSRUSSEL SIGLER INCone grant, 2023 · $247k
- FRFEATHER RIVER AQMDone grant, 2018 · $193k
- COCOUNTY OF TUOLUMNEone grant, 2018 · $135k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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 46 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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: California Fire Safe Council Inc · California Cupa Forum · Public Health Institute · California Fire Foundation · Center for Technology and Civic Life · Best Friends Animal Society · Petsmart Charities Inc · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
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.