· Public charity
California Volunteers Fund
The CALIFORNIA VOLUNTEERS FUND supports partnerships between the private sector and california volunteers, a department of the office of the governor of the state of california.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k6 grants · $41k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $22k
- $250k+5 grants · $2.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR | $472,500 |
| NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC | $472,500 |
| UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY | $472,500 |
| SERVEMINNESOTA | $472,500 |
| MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE AND CIVIC INNOVATION | $472,500 |
| KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC | $11,800 |
| URBAN TILTH | $10,000 |
| SUPPORT FEED | $9,700 |
| HANDSON BAY AREA | $8,900 |
| BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES | $6,600 |
| WATSONVILLE WETLANDS WATCH | $5,600 |
| THE REPRESENTATION PROJECT | $5,000 |
| DOLORES HUERTA FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 66% 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
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.
8 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $41k 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
- NANORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION2× · 2023–2024 · $945k · revenue +184%
- SSERVEMINNESOTA2× · 2023–2024 · $945k · revenue +29%
- BABAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC3× · 2021–2024 · $216k · revenue +105%
Funded once
- CCivicwellone grant, 2021 · $1.1M · revenue -56%
- TEThe Edible Schoolyard Project dba The Alice Waters Institutegraduatedone grant, 2023 · $22k · revenue +76%
- BEButte Environmental Councilgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $6k · revenue +32%
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.
Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…
Research, develop and promote waste reduction policies and programs
The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…
Well Beings is growing a next-gen movement that elevates and unites animal welfare and environmental protection by shining a spotlight on new models and helping to scale the most promising solutions.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
To bring people together to create local solutions for a healthy planet.
Active San Gabriel Valley (ActiveSGV) is a community-based environmental advocacy and public health non-profit organization. Our mission is to promote a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.
Foodwise grows thriving communities through the power and joy of local food. We envision a world that nourishes all people, local economies, and the living earth.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
The Central Valley Partnership (CVP) conducts and collaborates in training initiatives, including community organizer training, education on labor history and issues, messaging workshops, etc., aimed at fostering the establishment of new…
Serve as a partner, educator, and guide for philanthropy in reimagining practices that advance a thriving and just world.
Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bay Area Community Resources Inc and the most unlike its peers is Butte Environmental Council. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 16 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 Civicwell ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SERVEMINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC ↗
- Who funds The Edible Schoolyard Project dba The Alice Waters Institute ↗
- Who funds SUPPORT AND FEED INC ↗
- Who funds KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC ↗
- Who funds The Representation Project ↗
- Who funds Urban Tilth ↗
- Who funds HANDSON BAY AREA ↗
- Who funds Butte Environmental Council ↗
- Who funds WATSONVILLE WETLANDS WATCH ↗
- Who funds DOLORES C HUERTA FOUNDATION ↗
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: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The California Endowment · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · The San Francisco Foundation · Tides Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Volunteers 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to California Volunteers Fund?
Find your warmest path to California Volunteers Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.