Skip to content
Belmont-Redwood Shores Public School Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Belmont-Redwood Shores Public School Foundation

To help supplement the funds of the belmont-redwood shores school district so that programs can continue to be retained.

$2.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.9M
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$19M
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $620k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.9M
$72,970
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT$1,881,708
RALSTON MIDDLE SCHOOL PTA$166,740
NESBIT SCHOOL PTA$90,120
SANDPIPER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA$82,380
CIPRIANI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA$72,970
REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA$71,560
CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA$68,590
FOX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA$67,400
OPENING DOORS PTA$13,117
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT: $2.5M → 7%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT: $2.3M → 7%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT: $2.3M → 7%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT: $2.1M → 7%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT: $2.0M → 7%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT: $1.9M → 7%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT: $1.8M → 7%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL: $1.8M → 7%BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL: $1.7M → 7%RALSTON MIDDLE SCHOOL PTA: $167k → 7%NESBIT SCHOOL PTA: $90k → 7%CIPRIANI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA: $73k → 7%CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA: $69k → 7%FOX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA: $67k → 7%OPENING DOORS PTA: $13k → 7%SANDPIPER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA: $82k → 7%REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA: $72k → 7%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

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
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc

Support elementary school education

—
2
Pta California Congress of Parents 4780 Orchard Elem

The overall purpose of pta is to make every child's potential a reality by engaging and empowering families and communities to advocate for all children

—
3
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers and Students Inc

District School PTA supports all activities for students and staff at Redwood Shores Elementary School

—
4
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc

To supp0rt the children in scho

—
5
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc

Our pta supports our students and teachers with fundraising, membership benefits, assemblies and teachers / classroom supplies

—
6
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc

The mission of the Parent Teacher Association is to positively impact the lives of all children and families by representing the members by empowering and supporting them with skills in advocacy, leadership and communication.

—
7
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc

we are an organization at an Elementary school

—
8
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc

PTA's mission is to make every childs potential a reality by engaging and empowering families and communities to advocate for all children.

—
9
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc

Parent Teacher Organization supporting academic programs and student enrichment events at school.

—
10
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc William P Toler Elementary Pta

We are a not for profit public elementary school PTA that provides assemblies, field trips, teaching supplies, gardening and cooking programs.

—
11
Pta California Congress of Parents Teach Madrone Elementry Parent Teacher Assoc

To support elementary school with funds and resources

—
12
Pta California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc Casillas Elementary School

PTA school organization

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students Inc; the most unlike its peers is California Congress of Parents Teachers & Students in. 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

8 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. 8 of the 9 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.

6
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
0/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT: $18,422,749 · OtherBELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES SCHOOL DISTRICT+5 more: $480,800 · OtherBELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $71,560 · EducationCALIFORNIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS TEACHERS & STUDENTS INC: $67,400 · EducationPTA CALIFORNIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS TEACHERS & STUDENTS INC aka Opening Doors a Belmont Redwood Shores Special Services PTA: $13,117 · Education
Other$18,903,549Education$152,077

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 budgetCALIFORNIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS TEACHERS & STUDENTS IN: $166,740 over 1y, 89% of budgetPTA CALIFORNIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS TEACHERS & STUDENTS INC: $90,120 over 1y, 98% of budgetSANDPIPER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA: $82,380 over 1y, 84% of budgetCALIFORNIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS TEACHERS & STUDENTS INC: $72,970 over 1y, 92% of budgetBELMONT-REDWOOD SHORES PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $71,560 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetPTA CALIFORNIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS: $68,590 over 1y, 98% of budgetCALIFORNIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS TEACHERS & STUDENTS INC: $67,400 over 1y, 67% 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.

American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE7.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Belmont-Redwood Shores Public School Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Belmont-Redwood Shores Public School Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    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 9 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 Belmont-Redwood Shores Public School’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