Skip to content
Pacific Swimming Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Pacific Swimming Inc

Inspiring a passion for swimming and making a difference in the lives of our members.

$231k
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$32k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Recreation & Sports$1.7MPublic Safety & Disaster$120k
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $44k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $187k
$10,810
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB$31,720
QUICKSILVER SWIMMING$27,520
PALO ALTO SWIM CLUB$26,570
PLEASANTON SEA HAWKS INC$26,570
ALTO SWIM CLUB LLC$15,745
LIVERMORE AQUA COWBOYS$13,900
ORINDA AQUATICS INC$13,210
TERRAPINS SWIM TEAM$10,810
HUMBOLDT SWIM CLUB$10,700
SHARKS SWIM TEAM$10,395
DANVILLE AQUATICS$9,130
BURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB INC$9,100
SAN RAMON VALLEY AQUATICS$8,710
VALLEJO AQUATIC CLUB INC$7,170
ALBANY ARMADA AQUATICS LLC$5,260
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 (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%SANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB: $55k → 8%MAXWELL BYERS: $14k → 8%NAPA SWIM CLUB: $20k → 9%ROHNERT PARK SWIM CLUB: $18k → 9%VALLEJO AQUATICS CLUB INC: $23k → 10%TIGER AQUATICS BOOSTER CLUB: $21k → 12%SANTA CRUZ SWIMMING: $37k → 13%SANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB: $80k → 13%UKIAH DOLPHINS: $26k → 18%HUMBOLDT SWIM CLUB: $26k → 18%CARSON SWIM CLUB: $21k → 8%SANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB: $32k → 8%ST HELENA SWIM CLUB: $23k → 9%MONTEREY BAY SWIM CLUB: $30k → 12%DOUGLAS DOLFINS SWIM CLUB: $19k → 8%SANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB: $15k → 8%EAST BAY BAT RAYS: $19k → 10%RENO AQUATIC CLUB: $30k → 10%SANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB: $13k → 8%NORTH BAY AQUATICS: $14k → 8%NORTHERN NEVADA AQUATICS INC: $16k → 10%DE ANZA CUPERTINO AQUATICS: $12k → 8%PALO ALTO SWIM CLUB: $39k → 8%PALO ALTO SWIM CLUB: $33k → 8%LIVERMORE AQUA COWBOYS: $14k → 10%PALO ALTO SWIM CLUB: $27k → 8%OAKLANTIS SWIM TEAM: $13k → 10%OAKLANTIS SWIM TEAM: $12k → 10%PLEASANTON SEAHAWKS: $48k → 10%PLEASANTON SEA HAWKS INC: $27k → 10%PEAK SWIMMING: $24k → 8%ORINDA AQUATICS: $50k → 9%PLEASANTON SEA HAWKS INC: $11k → 10%ORINDA AQUATICS INC: $25k → 9%ORINDA AQUATICS INC: $13k → 9%ALTO SWIM CLUB LLC: $30k → 8%ORINDA AQUATICS INC: $11k → 9%ALTO SWIM CLUB LLC: $16k → 8%TERRAPINS SWIM TEAM: $19k → 9%LIVERMORE AQUA COWBOYS: $21k → 10%SUNNYVALE SWIM CLUB: $20k → 8%BRENTWOOD SEAWOLVES: $13k → 9%SWIM SOUTH BAY INC: $30k → 8%CROW CANYON SHARKS SWIM CLUB: $19k → 9%ALMADEN RIPTIDES: $19k → 8%CROW CANYON SHARKS SWIM CLUB: $13k → 9%AGCC OSPREY: $29k → 8%CROW CANYON SHARKS: $12k → 9%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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

69%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 21 repeat orgs$561k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +47% since the first grant, against +31% for those funded once.

21 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
34

Total granted

$1.2M
$556k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+31%

Still filing today

76%
62%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Recreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentPhilanthropyOther
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

  • SC
    SANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB
    5× · 2019–2025 · $195k · revenue +21%
  • PA
    PALO ALTO SWIM CLUB
    6× · 2019–2025 · $130k · revenue +105%
  • QS
    QUICKSILVER SWIMMING
    7× · 2019–2025 · $123k · revenue +84%

Funded once

  • SC
    SANTA CRUZ SWIMMING
    one grant, 2020 · $37k · revenue -21% · 29% of their budget
  • HS
    HOLLISTER SWIM CLUB
    one grant, 2020 · $36k
  • MB
    MONTEREY BAY SWIM CLUBgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $30k · revenue +98%
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
Daly City Dolphins Aquatics Association

Youth swimming and swimming competition.

Recreation & Sports
2
Canyons Aquatic Club

Competitive age swimming from ages 5 to 18 years of age. affiliated with scs & uss swimming. provide instruction, meets and support swimmers at national meets.

—
3
Hamburg Swim Club

Hamburg Swim Club offers a progressive, levelled swim program for youths ages 4 and up. We provide opportunities for skills development and competitive performance. We promote the development of life skills through the sport of swimming in…

Recreation & Sports
4
Charter Oak Aquatic Club Inc

A community dedicated to maintaining a positive, structured and balanced environment as it supports its athlete members in the pursuit of excellence in the sport of swimming.

—
5
Radnor Aquatic Club Inc

The Radnor Aquatic Club is a partnership of swimmers, parents and coaches whose main objective is to build a foundation and genuine positive attitude towards the sport of swimming on all levels ranging from the developmental swimmer to the…

Recreation & Sports
6
Temecula Tritons Swim Club

Provide competitive and recreational swim instruction to ages 5 through adult.

Recreation & Sports
7
Clinton Swim Club

To practice and develop the amateur sport of competitive swimming for children ages 5-20.

—
8
Jersey Village Stars Swim Team Inc
Recreation & Sports
9
Eagle Aquatics Inc

Provide a positive disciplined team environment for training and competing for all abilities of swimming for 5 to 18 years old

Recreation & Sports
10
San Francisco Merionettes

To teach synchronized swimming to boys and girls

—
11
Union Township Swim Club Corp
—
12
Bellevue Swim Club

This is a sports service club focusing on swimming. the club has organized lessons and swim meets. to provide techical training competitive opportunities and safety instruction for young persons and future athletes.

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Santa Clara Swim Club; the most unlike its peers is Agcc Osprey. 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

39 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. 39 of the 56 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
16
Early backer (in before they grew)
37/39
Grantees still filing
31/39
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB: $194,908 · OtherSANTA CLARA SWIM CLUBALTO SWIM CLUB LLC: $65,308 · OtherALTO SWIM CLUB LLCSHARKS SWIM TEAM: $62,080 · OtherSHARKS SWIM TEAMTERRAPINS SWIM TEAM: $48,890 · OtherTERRAPINS SWIM TEAMSANTA CRUZ SWIMMING: $36,800 · OtherHUMBOLDT SWIM CLUB: $36,380 · OtherHOLLISTER SWIM CLUB: $36,120 · OtherRENO AQUATIC CLUB: $35,440 · OtherVALLEJO AQUATIC CLUB INC: $30,390 · Other+23 more: $325,931 · Other+23 morePALO ALTO SWIM CLUB: $129,810 · Recreation & SportsPALO ALTO SWIM CLUBQUICKSILVER SWIMMING: $123,343 · Recreation & SportsQUICKSILVER SWIMMINGOrinda Aquatics Inc: $116,970 · Recreation & SportsOrinda Aquatics IncPLEASANTON SEAHAWKS INC: $111,643 · Recreation & SportsPLEASANTON SEAHAWKS INCLivermore Aqua Cowboys: $42,235 · Recreation & SportsMONTEREY BAY SWIM CLUB: $29,900 · Recreation & SportsNORTHERN NEVADA AQUATICS: $29,685 · Recreation & SportsSwim South Bay: $29,560 · Recreation & SportsAquaducks Incorporated: $27,660 · Recreation & Sports+12 more: $171,610 · Recreation & Sports+12 morePEAK SWIMMING: $39,490 · Youth DevelopmentSebastopol Sea Serpents: $22,560 · Youth DevelopmentBURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB INC: $53,123 · Philanthropy
Other$872,247Recreation & Sports$812,416Youth Development$62,050Philanthropy$53,123

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSANTA CLARA SWIM CLUB: $194,908 over 5y, 3.4% of budgetPALO ALTO SWIM CLUB: $129,810 over 6y, 4.6% of budgetQUICKSILVER SWIMMING: $123,343 over 7y, 3.6% of budgetOrinda Aquatics Inc: $116,970 over 6y, 5.6% of budgetPLEASANTON SEAHAWKS INC: $111,643 over 7y, 6.1% of budgetSHARKS SWIM TEAM: $62,080 over 5y, 13% of budgetBURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB INC: $53,123 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetTERRAPINS SWIM TEAM: $48,890 over 5y, 3.8% of budgetLivermore Aqua Cowboys: $42,235 over 3y, 50% of budgetPEAK SWIMMING: $39,490 over 3y, 7.7% of budgetSANTA CRUZ SWIMMING: $36,800 over 1y, 29% of budgetHUMBOLDT SWIM CLUB: $36,380 over 2y, 16% of budgetVALLEJO AQUATIC CLUB INC: $30,390 over 2y, 14% of budgetMONTEREY BAY SWIM CLUB: $29,900 over 1y, 13% of budgetNORTHERN NEVADA AQUATICS: $29,685 over 3y, 9.1% of budgetAGCC Osprey: $29,010 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetAquaducks Incorporated: $27,660 over 1y, 16% of budgetOaklantis Swim Team: $24,400 over 2y, 15% of budgetWALNUT CREEK AQUABEARS SWIM TEAM: $23,250 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetSebastopol Sea Serpents: $22,560 over 2y, 12% of budgetSt Helena Swim Club DBA Waves Aquatics Napa Valley: $22,520 over 1y, 12% of budgetTIGER AQUATICS BOOSTER CLUB INC: $21,440 over 1y, 12% of budgetCARSON TIGERSHARKS: $20,500 over 1y, 12% of budgetSUNNYVALE SWIM CLUB: $20,140 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetNAPA SWIM CLUB: $19,580 over 1y, 11% of budgetAlmaden Riptides: $19,160 over 1y, 7.5% of budgetSAN RAMON VALLEY AQUATICS: $14,670 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetNORTH BAY AQUATICS: $14,100 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetBRENTWOOD SEAWOLVES: $12,720 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetDE ANZA CUPERTINO AQUATICS: $11,700 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAlameda Swimming Pool Association co Paul Delle Cese: $10,380 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetARMADA BOOSTERS CLUB INC: $8,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetNeptune Swimming: $7,840 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA DOLPHINS SWIM TEAM INC: $6,430 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetMONTCLAIR SWIM TEAM ASSOCIATION INC: $5,840 over 1y, 11% of budgetSeaside Aquatics Club: $5,000 over 1y, 2.3% 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.

USA Swimming Foundati…Olympic Club Foundati…Analog Devices Founda…Paypal Charitable Giv…American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
USA Swimming Foundation IncCO19× affinity7 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: USA Swimming Foundation Inc · Olympic Club Foundation · Analog Devices Foundation · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Pacific Swimming Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pacific Swimming Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%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.

    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 56 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Pacific Swimming’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