Skip to content
Oakland Rotary Endowment at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Oakland Rotary Endowment

Develop and promote better quality of life in the local and international community and help young men and women in obtaining academic and vocational education and employment.

$319k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still 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, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$273kInternational$59kHousing & Shelter$32kFood & Nutrition$31kHuman Services$25kAnimals$23kCommunity Improvement$23kArts & Culture$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $135,808, the rows itemized in this filing. The $319,483 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $183,675 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k8 grants · $68k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $68k
$8,603
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT$31,750
ROTARY DISTRICT 5170 FOUNDATION$19,500
CHILDREN'S FAIRYLAND$16,940
OAKLAND CATHOLIC WORKER$8,603
HARBOR HOUSE MINISTRIES$8,603
OPERATION DIGNITY$8,603
ST MARY'S CENTER$8,603
ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK$8,603
ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY$8,603
TREES FOR OAKLAND$8,000
OAKLAND ZOO$8,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–24, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY: $9k → 10%OAKLAND CATHOLIC WORKER: $9k → 10%OAKLAND CATHOLIC WORKER: $7k → 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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$378k · 8 repeat orgs$62k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against -4% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
6

Total granted

$378k
$46k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
-4%

Still filing today

88%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’22’23’24
Recreation & SportsHuman ServicesEducationCrime & LegalAnimalsHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • OC
    Oakland Childrens Fairyland Inc
    5× · 2017–2024 · $49k · revenue +85%
  • ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK
    3× · 2020–2024 · $23k · revenue +39%
  • CS
    CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA
    2× · 2020–2024 · $23k · revenue +59%

Funded once

  • SC
    SELECTIVA CHARITIES INC
    one grant, 2023 · $11k · revenue -29%
  • PA
    Pro Arts Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -92%
  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
    one grant, 2022 · $7k · revenue -5%
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
Alameda Emergency Food Dba Alameda Food Bank

Founded in 1977, The Alameda Food Bank is a non-profit organization that helps Alameda residents in need by providing nourishing food in compassionate and respectful manner with the support of dedicated volunteers and local partners.

Food & Nutrition
2
Transportation Alternatives for Marin
Public Benefit
3
Bay Area Organizing Committee

A broad based network of local institutions - congregations, synagogues, non-profits and civic associations - that serve as a foundation for public relationships, leadership development and action around issues that affect our communities.

Unclassified
4
Oakland Convention & Visitors Bureau Dba Visit Oakland

Visit Oakland is a private, not-for-profit, 501(c)(6) organization, with a 21-member board of directors and full time staff.

Community Improvement
5
Oakland Chinatown Improvement Council

Our mission is to empower and unite the vibrant Chinatown community through social, cultural, and economic development, improving the quality of life for all residents. We achieve this by preserving heritage, promoting inclusivity, and…

Community Improvement
6
Oakland Planning and Development Corporation

Oakland planning and development corporation builds a better oakland and helps neighbors thrive. our vision is a beautiful, well-designed, sought-after neighborhood, in which a diverse mix of residents and visitors flourish.

Housing & Shelter
7
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
8
Oak Center Towers

To help finance and serve as general partner for oak centers, l.p., which operates a 196-unit affordable residential complex for elderly or disabled persons in oakland, california, and provides associated supporting social services.

—
9
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
10
Foundation for Sustainable Development

The Foundation for Sustainable Development FSD or the Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in Oakland, California, whose mission is to achieve community-driven goals through asset-based development and international exchange in…

—
11
Bay Area Community Services Housing Corp

Improve the quality of life for individuals in Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Solano County, Monterey County, Sacramento County and the surrounding area in the State of California.

Housing & Shelter
12
Oakland Chamber of Commerce

The oakland chamber of commerce is actively involved in public policy and provides valuable resources to its members.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Oakland Public Education Fund; the most unlike its peers is Selectiva Charities Inc. 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

17 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. 17 of the 18 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
8/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: $219,543 · OtherOAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $23,432 · OtherALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANKST MARY'S CENTER: $15,932 · Other+6 more: $44,123 · Other+6 moreOakland Childrens Fairyland Inc: $48,568 · Recreation & SportsOakland Child…Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation: $8,000 · Recreation & SportsOakland Parks…Rotary District 5170 Foundation: $38,000 · Community ImprovementRotary Distr…Harbor House Ministries Inc: $15,932 · Community ImprovementHarbor House…OAKLAND CATHOLIC WORKER: $15,932 · Human ServicesSOCIETY OF STVINCENT DE PAUL District Council of Alameda County: $8,603 · Human ServicesCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $23,000 · AnimalsOPERATION DIGNITY INC: $15,932 · Housing & ShelterSELECTIVA CHARITIES INC: $11,000 · Employment
Other$303,030Recreation & Sports$56,568Community Improvement$53,932Human Services$24,535Animals$23,000Housing & Shelter$15,932Employment$11,000

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 budgetOakland Childrens Fairyland Inc: $48,568 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetRotary District 5170 Foundation: $38,000 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $23,432 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA: $23,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOPERATION DIGNITY INC: $15,932 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHarbor House Ministries Inc: $15,932 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetOAKLAND CATHOLIC WORKER: $15,932 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetST MARY'S CENTER: $15,932 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSELECTIVA CHARITIES INC: $11,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetPro Arts Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetTHE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $9,544 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOCIETY OF STVINCENT DE PAUL District Council of Alameda County: $8,603 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOakland Parks and Recreation Foundation: $8,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY: $7,329 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetEast Bay Bicycle Coalition DBA Bike East Bay: $7,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE OAKLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND: $5,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR SENIORS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

East Bay Community Fo…The San Francisco Fou…Alameda County Commun…West Davis & Bergard …Kaiser Foundation Hos…Wayne and Gladys Vall…Fremont Bank Foundati…Lowell Berry Foundati…Silicon Valley Commun…The James Irvine Foun…The California Endowm…The Yelp Foundation
East Bay Community FoundationCA26.9× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: East Bay Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Alameda County Community Food Bank · West Davis & Bergard Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Wayne and Gladys Valley Foundation · Fremont Bank Foundation · Lowell Berry Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The James Irvine Foundation · The California Endowment · The Yelp 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 Rotary Endowment funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oakland Rotary Endowment. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 18 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $222k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Oakland Rotary Endowment’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