Skip to content
Oakland Fund for Public Innovation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Oakland Fund for Public Innovation

The Oakland Fund reaches across the city, engaging private partners to innovate, test and scale ideas that enhance Oakland.

$1.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$167k
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, FY2023 to 2025.

Housing & Shelter$1.7MHuman Services$630kPublic Benefit$498kEmployment$431kCommunity Improvement$272kYouth Development$217kEducation$130kEnvironment$78kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $1,004,057, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,823,165 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $819,108 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $55k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $934k
$100,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$5.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Goalsetter$167,000
ESO Ventures$142,000
City of Oakland$135,000
SPCCONE$120,000
Trybe Inc$120,000
Oakland Public Education Fund$100,000
Planting Justice$100,000
E Oakland Boxing Association$50,000
Dr Huey Newton Foundation$25,000
Kingmakers of Oakland$20,000
Cobiz Richmond Inc$10,000
Workforce Equity Solutions$8,949
Roca Inc$6,108
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–25, $150k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%LC Lillie Cox Haven of Hope: $15k → 9%Trybe Inc: $120k → 10%Trybe Inc: $15k → 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.
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.
$3.4M · 6 repeat orgs$760k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
5

Total granted

$3.4M
$142k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+85%

Still filing today

83%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $618k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24’25
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementEducationPhilanthropyEnvironmentYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • BA
    Bay Area Community Services Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +18%
  • CO
    City of Oakland OPRYD
    3× · 2023–2025 · $1.3M
  • TI
    TRYBE INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $135k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
    one grant, 2023 · $63k
  • O
    Oaklandish
    one grant, 2024 · $39k
  • TR
    THE REGENERATION PROJECT
    one grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue -90%
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
Oakland Fund for Public Innovation

The Oakland Fund reaches across the city, engaging private partners to innovate, test and scale ideas that enhance Oakland. The Fund strives to improve the prosperity, safety and quality of life for all Oaklanders with projects that: build…

Community Improvement
2
Impact Oakland Now
Community Improvement
3
Floreciendo

The mission of Oakland Bloom is to advance food and economic justice community power and resilience with working-class immigrant and diaspora chef-entrepreneurs. Oakland Bloom does this through stewarding Open Test Kitchen as a kitchen and…

Employment
4
California Urban Partnership

The California Urban Partnership's (CUP) mission is to build economic security in communities of color through policy research, education and organizing community action. We advocate for systems changes that increase investments to improve…

Community Improvement
5
Oakland Peace Center

The Oakland Peace Center provides needed space, hosts collaborative events and trainings, and creates a network of emotional and spiritual support for the organizations who partner in its work. These organizations pursue access,…

Community Improvement
6
Betti Ono Foundation

"the betti ono foundation designs and produces high-impact arts, community engagement & cultural development initiatives that leverage cultural products and networks for good. the betti ono foundation operations are headquartered in…

Arts & Culture
7
Oakstop Alliance

OAKSTOP ALLIANCE IS A BLACK ARTS-LED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION IN OAKLAND CALIFORNIA. We empower creative entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow their businesses and enrich their communities with culturally relevant and accessible…

Arts & Culture
8
East Bay Agency for Children

For more than 70 years, East Bay Agency for Children continues to improve the well-being of children, youth and families by reducing the impact of trauma and social inequalities.

Health
9
Lead Liberated

Through coaching and group facilitation, leaders of color heal from racism, develop skills to identify & interrupt racism in personal leadership, organizational practices & policies, and produce antiracist solutions in partnership with…

Education
10
Oakland Community Land Trust

Combating community deterioration and expanding housing and economic opportunities for low and moderate income residents; promoting neighborhood stability and community involvement through permanently affordable homeownership and equity…

Housing & Shelter
11
Bay Area Creative Bac

Bay area creative supports positive change through creative and expressive arts that uphold cultures, provide therapeutic benefits, and to enhance communication skills primarily in underrepresented communities. We are driven by our…

Education
12
350 Bay Area

We are building a grassroots climate movement in the Bay Area and beyond to eliminate carbon pollution and achieve a clean energy future with racial, economic, and environmental justice.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Black Cultural Zone Community Development Corporation; the most unlike its peers is The Regeneration Project. 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 19 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)
4
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

Bay Area Community Services Inc: $1,724,125 · OtherBay Area Community Services IncCity of Oakland OPRYD: $1,300,758 · OtherCity of Oakland OPRYDESO Ventures: $142,000 · OtherSPCCONE: $120,000 · Other+6 more: $216,413 · Other+6 moreGoalsetter Foundation Inc: $167,000 · PhilanthropyTRYBE INC: $135,000 · Human ServicesLC AND LILLIE COX HAVEN OF HOPE: $15,000 · Human ServicesTHE OAKLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND: $110,000 · EducationKingmakers of Oakland: $20,000 · EducationPlanting Justice: $100,000 · EnvironmentROCA INC: $57,558 · Youth DevelopmentCOBIZ RICHMOND INC: $10,000 · Community ImprovementBLACK CULTURAL ZONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $10,000 · Community Improvement
Other$3,503,296Philanthropy$167,000Human Services$150,000Education$130,000Environment$100,000Youth Development$57,558Community Improvement$20,000

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 budgetBay Area Community Services Inc: $1,724,125 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetTRYBE INC: $135,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetTHE OAKLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND: $110,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetROCA INC: $57,558 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetEAST OAKLAND BOXING ASSOCIATION: $50,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetDR HUEY P NEWTON FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetKingmakers of Oakland: $20,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTHE REGENERATION PROJECT: $15,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLC AND LILLIE COX HAVEN OF HOPE: $15,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetCOBIZ RICHMOND INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetBLACK CULTURAL ZONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

East Bay Community Fo…The San Francisco Fou…Tides FoundationNew Venture FundSilicon Valley Commun…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
East Bay Community FoundationCA22.8× affinity9 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: East Bay Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Tides Foundation · New Venture Fund · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Oakland Fund for Public Innovation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oakland Fund for Public Innovation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 78%
  • Roca Inc: 78% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 Oakland Fund for Public Innovation?

Find your warmest path to Oakland Fund for Public Innovation 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 19 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 Oakland Fund for Public Innovation’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