Skip to content
South Placer County Tourism Corp dba Placer Valley Tourism at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

South Placer County Tourism Corp dba Placer Valley Tourism

Placer Valley Tourism's mission is to incease the health of the hotel industry through occupancy and average daily rate in Roseville, Rocklin, And Lincoln, California.

$333k
Granted FY2024still arriving
17
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$54k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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 2024.

Recreation & Sports$11MArts & Culture$60kYouth Development$46kEducation$30k
02FY2024 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $35k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $244k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
$15,820
Median grant
2
States reached
$6.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Nor CA Volleyball Association$54,012
Bay Area Basketball Coaches A$33,084
Elite Event Partners$31,666
Jessup University Athletics$29,571
Hardwood Palace Rocklin LLC$28,462
Johnson Ranch Sports Club$25,158
West Coast Volleyball Associa$24,542
Hansen Basketball Services$21,348
All Star Tournaments$15,820
Sierra College Athletics$12,337
Senior Softball USA$11,376
Placer United$10,528
Tournament Mgmt Solutions$8,378
USA Softball of Sacramento$8,294
Sacramento Valley BMX$7,774
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 1% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Hansen Basketball Services: $21k → 14%All Star Tournaments: $16k → 6%West Coast Volleyball Associa: $25k → 9%Nor CA Volleyball Association: $54k → 9%Bay Area Basketball Coaches A: $33k → 10%UTMB-World Triathlon Corp: $5k → 12%Sacramento Valley BMX: $8k → 14%Hardwood Palace Rocklin LLC: $28k → 10%Tournament Mgmt Solutions: $8k → 6%USA Softball of Sacramento: $8k → 12%Elite Event Partners: $32k → 6%Senior Softball USA: $11k → 12%Jessup University Athletics: $30k → 6%Johnson Ranch Sports Club: $25k → 12%Placer United: $11k → 6%Sierra College Athletics: $12k → 6%Sierra College Aquatics: $5k → 6%Placer Valley Sports Complex: $5.7M → 6%Placer Valley Sports Complex: $4.8M → 6%Placer Valley Sports Complex: $594k → 6%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 field
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 17 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
0/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Placer Valley Sports Complex Inc DBA the Grounds: $11,103,341 · Recreation & SportsPlacer Valley Sports Complex Inc DBA the Grounds+2 more: $40,858 · Recreation & SportsNORTHERN CALIFORNIA VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION: $54,012 · OtherElite Event Partners: $31,666 · OtherWILLIAM JESSUP UNIVERSITY: $29,571 · OtherHardwood Palace Rocklin LLC: $28,462 · OtherJohnson Ranch Sports Club: $25,158 · OtherWest Coast Volleyball Associa: $24,542 · OtherHansen Basketball Services: $21,348 · OtherSIERRA JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT: $17,628 · OtherSENIOR SOFTBALL USA: $11,376 · Other+3 more: $21,984 · OtherALLSTARTOURNAMENTS: $15,820 · Youth DevelopmentPLACER UNITED SOCCER CLUB: $10,528 · Youth Development
Recreation & Sports$11,144,199Other$265,747Youth Development$26,348

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPlacer Valley Sports Complex Inc DBA the Grounds: $11,103,341 over 3y, 19% of budgetNORTHERN CALIFORNIA VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION: $54,012 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetBAY AREA BASKETBALL COACHES ASSOCIATION: $33,084 over 1y, 16% of budgetWILLIAM JESSUP UNIVERSITY: $29,571 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALLSTARTOURNAMENTS: $15,820 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPLACER UNITED SOCCER CLUB: $10,528 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetSACRAMENTO VALLEY BMX: $7,774 over 1y, 3.1% 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.

  • Who funds Placer Valley Sports Complex Inc DBA the Grounds ↗
  • Who funds NORTHERN CALIFORNIA VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds BAY AREA BASKETBALL COACHES ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds WILLIAM JESSUP UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds ALLSTARTOURNAMENTS ↗
  • Who funds PLACER UNITED SOCCER CLUB ↗
  • Who funds SACRAMENTO VALLEY BMX ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization South Placer County Tourism Corp dba Placer Valley Tourism funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from South Placer County Tourism Corp dba Placer Valley Tourism. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 17 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 South Placer County Tourism Corp dba Placer Valley Tourism’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