Skip to content
Rebuild North Bay Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Rebuild North Bay Foundation

After the fire usa is an initiative of rebuild northbay foundation, a registered nonprofit.

$967k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$178k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Environment$931kHousing & Shelter$641kPublic Safety & Disaster$258kEmployment$50kArts & Culture$30kPublic Benefit$25kPhilanthropy$15kHealth$12kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $395,174, the rows itemized in this filing. The $967,138 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $571,964 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

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $115k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $280k
$46,336
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NAPA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT$177,806
MENDOCINO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT$102,582
SONOMA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT$46,336
GOLD RIDGE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT$40,246
CLEAR LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER$28,204
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 (FY20–20, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, 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%CORAZON HEALDSBURG: $10k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 19% of Rebuild North Bay Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 77% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 38%.

Rebuild North Bay Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 39% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 9 repeat orgs$893k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +1020% since the first grant, against +35% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
31

Total granted

$1.1M
$893k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+1020%
+35%

Still filing today

44%
58%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentPublic Safety & DisasterArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesHousing & 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

  • CL
    Clear Lake Environmental Research Center
    4× · 2020–2024 · $93k · revenue ×29
  • OA
    Occidental Arts and Ecology Center
    2× · 2021–2022 · $87k · revenue +122%
  • VF
    VOLUNTEER FIRE FOUNDATION
    2× · 2020–2021 · $50k · revenue ×11 · 42% of their budget

Funded once

  • R3
    RSG 3-D SERVICES GROUP LLC
    one grant, 2019 · $440k
  • HF
    HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SONOMA COUNTY
    one grant, 2019 · $60k · revenue -49%
  • LR
    Larkfield Resilience Fund Inc
    one grant, 2019 · $45k · 38% of their budget
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
Sonoma Mountain Institute
Environment
2
Sonoma Botanical Garden
—
3
Solano Affordable Housing Foundation
Housing & Shelter
4
Homes for California Dba Homes for Sonoma

Homes for Sonoma is a nonprofit developer creating quality workforce housing options that support safe and sustainable community, and finds efficient, scalable solutions to address the housing crisis in Sonoma County and throughout…

Housing & Shelter
5
Fire Safe Sonoma

Public benefit, fire prevention & education

Public Safety & Disaster
6
Sonoma Applied Village Services

Address the homeless crisis in California.

Housing & Shelter
7
Chile-California Council

The Chile-California Council is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to developing and promoting joint endeavors and cooperative relations between Chile and California, as well as individuals, legal entities and other institutions in…

International
8
Eastern Madera County Fire Safe Council Inc

Planning and participation in activities to increase safety and reduce fire hazards in the Eastern Madera County area.

Public Safety & Disaster
9
Mountain Fire Foundation

TO support sonoma county fire district fire safety

—
10
Amador Fire Safe Council

Protect the people of amador county and their property from the effects of catastrophic fires through education, cooperation, innovation and action

Public Safety & Disaster
11
Sustainable Contra Costa

Sustainable Contra Costa conducts educational outreach campaigns workshops and events to help people and communities live sustainably and build healthy communities.

Environment
12
Sonoma Ecology Center

The Mission of Sonoma Ecology Center is to work with our community to enhance and sustain ecological health in the Sonoma valley.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Los Cien Sonoma County Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ukiah Foundation for Commerce & Education. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

24 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. 24 of the 41 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/24
Grantees still filing
19/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RSG 3-D SERVICES GROUP LLC: $440,460 · OtherRSG 3-D SERVICES GROUP LLCNapa Resource Conservation: $239,292 · OtherNapa Resource ConservationMENDOCINO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $234,800 · OtherMENDOCINO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTREBUILDING NOW INC: $157,498 · OtherREBUILDING NOW INCSONOMA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $107,783 · OtherSONOMA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTGOLD RIDGE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRIC: $57,721 · Other+20 more: $251,586 · Other+20 moreClear Lake Environmental Research Center: $93,387 · EnvironmentClear Lake Envi…Occidental Arts and Ecology Center: $86,680 · EnvironmentOccidental Arts…Larkfield Resilience Fund Inc: $45,000 · EnvironmentLarkfield Resil…EMERALD EARTH SANCTUARY: $27,160 · EnvironmentEMERALD EARTH S…LandPaths: $10,000 · EnvironmentVOLUNTEER FIRE FOUNDATION: $50,423 · Public Safety & DisasterNUESTRA COMUNIDAD: $33,050 · Public Safety & DisasterSONOMA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION: $5,000 · Public Safety & DisasterHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SONOMA COUNTY: $60,000 · Housing & ShelterUKIAH FOUNDATION FOR COMMERCE & EDUCATION: $25,000 · Arts & CultureSONOMA VALLEY COMMUNITY COMMUNICATIONS INC: $14,360 · Arts & CultureSCOPA HAS A DREAM INC DBA CORAZON HEALDSBURG: $10,000 · Human ServicesCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF SANTA ROSA: $10,000 · Human ServicesLime Foundation: $10,000 · Community ImprovementINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC: $6,000 · Community Improvement
Other$1,489,140Environment$262,227Public Safety & Disaster$88,473Housing & Shelter$60,000Arts & Culture$39,360Human Services$20,000Community Improvement$16,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetClear Lake Environmental Research Center: $93,387 over 4y, 4.2% of budgetOccidental Arts and Ecology Center: $86,680 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SONOMA COUNTY: $60,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetVOLUNTEER FIRE FOUNDATION: $50,423 over 2y, 42% of budgetLarkfield Resilience Fund Inc: $45,000 over 1y, 38% of budgetNORTH COAST BUILDERS EXCHANGE INC: $40,000 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetNUESTRA COMUNIDAD: $33,050 over 1y, 10% of budgetUKIAH FOUNDATION FOR COMMERCE & EDUCATION: $25,000 over 1y, 35% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MENDOCINO COUNTY: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSONOMA VALLEY COMMUNITY COMMUNICATIONS INC: $14,360 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetPEP Housing: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLandPaths: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSCOPA HAS A DREAM INC DBA CORAZON HEALDSBURG: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetLime Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF SANTA ROSA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSONOMA VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: $6,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUnited Policyholders: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSONOMA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION: $5,000 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetMayacamas Volunteer Fire Department Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetFirst Responders Resiliency: $5,000 over 1y, 1.6% 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.

Sonoma County Communi…United Way of the Win…Marin Community Found…Redwood Credit Union …California Fire Found…Peter E Haas Jr Famil…Sonoma County Vintner…McNabb FoundationThe San Francisco Fou…East Bay Community Fo…Tipping Point Communi…Jewish Community Fede…
Sonoma County Community FoundationCA37.5× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sonoma County Community Foundation · United Way of the Wine Country · Marin Community Foundation · Redwood Credit Union Community Fund Inc · California Fire Foundation · Peter E Haas Jr Family Fund · Sonoma County Vintners Foundation · McNabb Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · Tipping Point Community · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma

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 Rebuild North Bay Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rebuild North Bay Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 41 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 $526 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 Rebuild North Bay’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