· Public charity
California Charter Schools Association Advocates
To increase the involvement of the charter school community in the political process, create a pipeline of charter school supporters and activitists, endorse and support public officials who are committed to california charter public schools, and grow the political influence of the california charter school movement.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $77,250 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $88,750 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $11,500 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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $62k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION | $32,250 |
| MAGGY'S CAMPAIGN FOR CHOICE | $30,000 |
| BLANCA PACHECOS MOVING CALIFORNIA FORWARD BALLOT MEASURE COMMITTEE | $7,500 |
| CALIFORNIANS FOR JUSTICE A COMMITTEE CONTROLLED BY JESSE GABRIEL | $7,500 |
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 10%. 98% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +18% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 3 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, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- CCCALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION7× · 2017–2025 · $903k · revenue -43%
- SUSPEAK UP2× · 2020–2022 · $50k · revenue -98%
- CLCALIFORNIA LGBTQ FOUNDATION2× · 2022–2023 · $23k · revenue +18%
Funded once
- SLSafety & Learning for Our Schoolsone grant, 2019 · $175k
- FOFriends of Oakland Public Schoolsone grant, 2017 · $70k
- GIGOVERNORS INAUGURAL FUND 2019one grant, 2019 · $50k · revenue -100%
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.
Authorize Bond for Vote on 2018 Ballot
To educate the public and policy makers about the history and purpose of California's property tax law.
Communications to Californians on state legislation that expands taxation
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…
To conduct socio-economic demographic research, analysis, and advocacy related to communities of interest and voting rights in California.
The specific and primary purpose of Govern for California is to promote social welfare by improving the democratic process and the performance of government through policy reforms in election rules through education of candidates and…
To support and oppose issues affecting LGBTQ+ civil rights in California.
To support or oppose ballot measures in California.
Support elementary school education
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California Charter Schools Association and the most unlike its peers is ProgressCA. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 24 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 CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Safety & Learning for Our Schools ↗
- Who funds SPEAK UP ↗
- Who funds GOVERNORS INAUGURAL FUND 2019 ↗
- Who funds EQUALITY CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds ProgressCA ↗
- Who funds 2023 Governors Inaugural Fund ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA LGBTQ FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA ACTION ↗
- Who funds California Problem Solvers Action Fund ↗
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: California Chamber of Commerce
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 California Charter Schools Association Advocates 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.