Skip to content
California Volunteers Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$2.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$473k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Environment$6.1MEducation$22kCivil Rights$10kPhilanthropy$5k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $41k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $22k
  • $250k+5 grants · $2.4M
$10,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$7.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SERVEMINNESOTA$472,500
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY$472,500
NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR$472,500
NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC$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
DOLORES HUERTA FOUNDATION$5,000
THE REPRESENTATION PROJECT$5,000
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 66% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $473k → 16%SERVEMINNESOTA: $473k → 11%BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES: $200k → 8%URBAN TILTH: $10k → 9%EDIBLE SCHOOLYARD PROJECT: $22k → 10%HANDSON BAY AREA: $9k → 10%LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION: $1.1M → 12%WATSONVILLE WETLANDS WATCH: $6k → 13%BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $6k → 18%SUPPORT FEED: $10k → 17%KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC: $12k → 9%NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR: $473k → 8%UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $473k → 12%MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE AND CIVIC INNOVATION: $473k → 6%NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $473k → 16%SERVEMINNESOTA: $473k → 11%BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES: $9k → 8%THE REPRESENTATION PROJECT: $5k → 12%SUPPORT FEED: $9k → 17%NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR: $473k → 8%UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $473k → 12%MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE AND CIVIC INNOVATION: $473k → 6%BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES: $7k → 8%THE REPRESENTATION PROJECT: $5k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
NY
CT
CA
UT
MD
AZ
NC
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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.0M · 8 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$5.0M
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+32%

Still filing today

63%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $41k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’23’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEducationPublic BenefitHealthFood & NutritionOther
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

  • S
    SERVEMINNESOTA
    2× · 2023–2024 · $945k · revenue +29%
  • NA
    NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $945k · revenue +184%
  • BA
    BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC
    3× · 2021–2024 · $216k · revenue +105%

Funded once

  • C
    Civicwell
    one grant, 2021 · $1.1M · revenue -56%
  • TE
    The Edible Schoolyard Project dba The Alice Waters Institutegraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $22k · revenue +76%
  • BE
    Butte Environmental Councilgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $6k · revenue +32%
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
Sustainable Conservation

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…

Environment
2
Californians Against Waste Foundation

Research, develop and promote waste reduction policies and programs

Environment
3
Boulder Watershed Collective

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…

Environment
4
Well Beings

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.

Human Services
5
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
6
Acterra Action for a Healthy Planet

To bring people together to create local solutions for a healthy planet.

Environment
7
Active San Gabriel Valley

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.

Community Improvement
8
Foodwise Community

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.

—
9
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

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,…

Employment
10
Central Valley Partnership

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…

Civil Rights
11
Justice Funders

Serve as a partner, educator, and guide for philanthropy in reimagining practices that advance a thriving and just world.

—
12
Taproot Earth

Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bay Area Community Resources Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

13 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. 13 of the 16 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
6/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $945,000 · OtherUTAH STATE UNIVERSITYNORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR: $945,000 · OtherNORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNORUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $945,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK+2 more: $18,900 · OtherCivicwell: $1,071,285 · Public BenefitCivicwellNORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $945,000 · EducationNORTHERN ARIZONA …+1 more: $22,000 · EducationSERVEMINNESOTA: $945,000 · Community ImprovementSERVEMINNESOTA+1 more: $5,000 · Community ImprovementBAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC: $215,861 · HealthKEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC: $11,800 · EnvironmentUrban Tilth: $10,000 · EnvironmentButte Environmental Council: $6,100 · EnvironmentWATSONVILLE WETLANDS WATCH: $5,600 · EnvironmentSUPPORT AND FEED INC: $18,900 · Food & Nutrition
Other$2,853,900Public Benefit$1,071,285Education$967,000Community Improvement$950,000Health$215,861Environment$33,500Food & Nutrition$18,900

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCivicwell: $1,071,285 over 1y, 12% of budgetSERVEMINNESOTA: $945,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetNORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $945,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetBAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC: $215,861 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetThe Edible Schoolyard Project dba The Alice Waters Institute: $22,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSUPPORT AND FEED INC: $18,900 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetKEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC: $11,800 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Representation Project: $10,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetUrban Tilth: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHANDSON BAY AREA: $8,900 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetButte Environmental Council: $6,100 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetWATSONVILLE WETLANDS WATCH: $5,600 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDOLORES C HUERTA FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Silicon Valley Commun…The California Endowm…Kaiser Foundation Hos…The San Francisco Fou…Tides FoundationGs Donor Advised Phil…National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…Paypal Charitable Giv…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA18.3× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 16 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on California Volunteers’ 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