Skip to content
Center for Advancing Women in Technology at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Center for Advancing Women in Technology

To provide computing education for more women in college by creating new interdisciplinary computing education programs.

$163k
Granted FY2026still arriving
3
Grants FY2026still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$1.9MScience & Tech$639kEmployment$186kCommunity Improvement$41k
02FY2026 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2026

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $63k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$32,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$690k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY TOWER FOUNDATION$100,000
OHLONE COLLEGE FOUNDATION$32,000
WEST VALLEY MISSION FOUNDATION$31,000
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 (FY18–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 65% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WEST VALLEY MISSION FOUNDATION: $41k → 8%THE FOUNDATION OF CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO: $50k → 10%THE UNIVERSITY CORP SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY: $166k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE: $187k → 11%CA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $204k → 12%PASADENA CITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $40k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $115k → 16%WEST VALLEY MISSION FOUNDATION: $31k → 8%THE FOUNDATION OF CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO: $40k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE FOUNDATION: $89k → 11%CA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $99k → 12%PASADENA CITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $30k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $105k → 16%SILICON VALLEY CYBERSECURITY INSTITUTE: $10k → 8%OHLONE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $32k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE: $85k → 11%CA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $98k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $94k → 16%OHLONE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $26k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE FOUNDATION: $38k → 11%OHLONE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $17k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $150k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY: $186k → 10%LAS POSITAS COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $35k → 10%LAS POSITAS COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $21k → 10%LAS POSITAS COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $19k → 10%THE FRIENDS OF CHABOT COLLEGE: $26k → 10%THE FRIENDS OF CHABOT COLLEGE: $25k → 10%THE FRIENDS OF CHABOT COLLEGE: $24k → 10%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.
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 19% of Center for Advancing Women in Technology’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Center for Advancing Women in Technologylessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.4M · 10 repeat orgs$513k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +45% since the first grant, against +36% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2026, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
4

Total granted

$2.4M
$513k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
+36%

Still filing today

70%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
EducationCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • TT
    THE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
    8× · 2018–2026 · $829k · revenue +41%
  • TF
    THE FOUNDATION OF THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO
    2× · 2023–2024 · $90k · revenue +45%
  • OC
    OHLONE COLLEGE FOUNDATION
    3× · 2024–2026 · $75k · revenue +60%

Funded once

  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
    one grant, 2018 · $186k
  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO STATEgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $166k · revenue +117%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2025 · $150k · revenue 0%
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
Southwestern College Foundation

Southwestern College Foundation is dedicated to raising friends and funds that support all aspects of educational advancement at Southwestern College.

—
2
Uc Santa Cruz Foundation

To benefit the university of california santa cruz.

Education
3
San Mateo County Community Colleges Foundation

The mission of san mateo county community colleges foundation is to promote student success and program innovation by providing financial support to help san mateo county community college district students achieve their goals. the…

Education
4
Foundation for the Seattle Colleges

The Foundation for the Seattle Colleges exists to advance fundraising efforts for the Seattle Community College District. We seek to attract financial resources which support students so they may be successful; maintain the quality and…

—
5
Cabrillo College Foundation

To provide private support for student scholarships, emergency financial support to increase student success, innovative mentoring, and support for youth to attend college and support for academic programs and facilities.

Education
6
California State University Foundation

Established in 1962, the foundation is the central foundation for the california state university (csu) system and serves the office of the chancellor. the foundation exists to support excellence in teaching and learning, and to serve the…

Philanthropy
7
Lake Tahoe Community College Foundation

The mission of the foundation is to work for educational excellence by assisting and encouraging investment in the development and growth of educational opportunities at lake tahoe community college district

Education
8
Shasta College Foundation

Support shasta college by building strong partnerships, generating friendships and financial support, and promoting excellence in education and service to the community.

Education
9
The Foundation for Florida Gateway College Inc

The foundation provides academic scholarships and financial support to the college.

Education
10
The Uc Davis Foundation

The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.

Education
11
Foundation of California State University Monterey Bay

To further the scientific, literary, educational and charitable purposes of california state university, monterey bay, including fundraising, development, endowment management, financial assistance, public relations and other support.

Education
12
Los Angeles City College Foundation

We are committed to breaking the cycle of poverty and creating programs that drive change. by addressing students' basic needs, including food, housing, utilities, transportation, and healthcare, we enable low-income students to enroll,…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pasadena City College Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Silicon Valley Cybersecurity Instit Ute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 14 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY: $829,311 · EducationTHE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITYTHE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO STATE: $166,400 · EducationTHE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO STATEUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $150,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATIONTHE FOUNDATION OF THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO: $90,000 · EducationTHE FOUNDATION OF THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCOLas Positas College Foundation: $75,000 · EducationTHE FRIENDS OF CHABOT COLLEGE: $75,000 · EducationPasadena City College Foundation: $70,000 · Education+1 more: $10,000 · EducationCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY: $400,000 · OtherCALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITYREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT RIVERSIDE: $400,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT RIVERSIDEUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $313,467 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVISREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY: $186,316 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEYOHLONE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $75,000 · OtherOHLONE COLLEGE FOUNDATIONWEST VALLEY MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $72,000 · Community Improvement
Education$1,465,711Other$1,374,783Community Improvement$72,000

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 budgetTHE TOWER FOUNDATION OF SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY: $829,311 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION SAN FRANCISCO STATE: $166,400 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $150,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FOUNDATION OF THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO: $90,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetOHLONE COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetLas Positas College Foundation: $75,000 over 3y, 3.1% of budgetTHE FRIENDS OF CHABOT COLLEGE: $75,000 over 3y, 4.6% of budgetWEST VALLEY MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $72,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetPasadena City College Foundation: $70,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetSILICON VALLEY CYBERSECURITY INSTIT UTE: $10,000 over 1y, 16% 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.

Foundation for Califo…Silicon Valley Commun…Morgan Stanley Global…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Foundation for California Community CollegesCA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Foundation for California Community Colleges · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Center for Advancing Women in Technology funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Center for Advancing Women in Technology. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Center for Advancing Women in Technology?

    Find your warmest path to Center for Advancing Women in Technology 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 14 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Center for Advancing Women in Technology’s 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