· Public charity
California Emerging Technology Fund
Provide leadership statewide to minimize the Digital Divide by accelerating the deployment and adoption of broadband and advanced communications to unserved and underserved communities.
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 $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k47 grants · $952k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $365k
- $250k+2 grants · $2.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| School2Home (multiple partners) | $1,867,230 |
| AGIF Education Foundation | $879,510 |
| Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation | $120,000 |
| Sigma Beta Xi | $78,710 |
| Valley Vision | $66,000 |
| Southern California Association of Governments | $50,000 |
| County of Sonoma | $50,000 |
| Sourtheast Community Development Corporation | $30,265 |
| County of Inyo | $30,000 |
| Economic Development Collaborative | $30,000 |
| Sierra Business Council | $30,000 |
| Tech Exchange | $26,000 |
| Latinas Contra Cancer | $24,525 |
| Sierra County Assessors Office | $20,000 |
| County of Yuba | $20,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $679k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 89% of those 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.
42 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2025, 30 since wound down; 42 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, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.8M 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
- WIWORLD INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY3× · 2018–2020 · $535k · revenue +54%
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION5× · 2021–2025 · $520k · revenue +65%- SBSIGMA BETA XI INC4× · 2019–2025 · $425k · revenue +176% · 29% of their budget
Funded once
- HHuman-I-Tgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $288k · revenue +750%
- #(#OAKLANDUNDIVIDED (CITY OF OAKLAND)(OAKLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND)one grant, 2021 · $270k
NEXTGEN CLIMATE AMERICA INCone grant, 2023 · $250k · revenue +22%
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.
To distribute public affairs and other educational information in order to create an electronic bridge between californians and their public officials, and, in the process educate a new generation of voting citizens and civic leaders who…
To build livable and economically viable communities in the low income areas of This is accomplished by Greater Los Angeles strengthening the skils and self-sufficiency of residents, businesses of residents, businesses and community…
California Donor Table anchors a hub of donors, foundations, and community leaders. We pool together our resources to shape California into a truly democratic state that works for the people, not the powerful. Rooted in our commitment to…
Represent members and cal employers to members of cal legislature and other agencies of state government through in-house legislative analysts, lobbying staff, and contract lobbyists. cal chamber publishes books and software related to…
To actively promote economic development in southwest riverside county while working with various cities, the county of riverside and the local chambers of commerce.
Well educates and trains local latino elected officials about california water policy to promote timely and equitable actions that serve to develop a robust economy, healthy communities, and a resilient environment for all californians.
California community economic development association (cceda) is a non-profit corporation comprised of community based organizations and individuals involved in economic developement activities.
The Labor Council offers an avenue for local unions to come together as one group.
The Workforce Development Board promotes workforce development activitieswhich connect Los Angeles jobseekers and youth to training, workforce preparedness and employment opportunities. Facilitates placing youth into private,public &…
The league of california community foundations promotes and strengthens community foundations in california. through collaboration and shared learning among member foundations and building partnerships with private and public entities, we…
The AIA California, in collaboration with local components, is the voice of the architectural profession.
strengthening the leadership and workforce skills of Day Laborers and Domestic Workers. through 5 Day Labor Centers, Workers Health Program & Mujeres en Accion using Education & outreach empowerment tools
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California Counties Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Orange County Education and Research Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 34 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
63 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. 63 of the 145 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 AMERICAN GI FORUM EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF SANTA MARIA CALIF ↗
- Who funds WORLD INSTITUTE ON DISABILITY ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FRESNO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SIGMA BETA XI INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAYS OF CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIF ↗
- Who funds VALLEY VISION ↗
- Who funds SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Human-I-T ↗
- Who funds NEXTGEN CLIMATE AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds BIZFED INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL BROADBAND CONSORTIUM ↗
- Who funds Sierra Business Council ↗
- Who funds IMPERIAL VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COR ↗
- Who funds MONTEREY BAY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ↗
- Who funds CHICANA FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CA DBA CHICANA LATINA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WICONDUIT ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY INC ↗
- Who funds Rise Economy ↗
- Who funds EL CONCILIO OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ↗
- Who funds DELHI CENTER ↗
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: The California Endowment · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · California Community Foundation · Weingart Foundation · Public Health Institute · The California Wellness Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · California Fire Foundation · Sierra Health Foundation Center for Health Program Management · The James Irvine Foundation · The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation · California Healthcare 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.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization California Emerging Technology Fund 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.