Skip to content
Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation

The organization's mission is to aid, assist, promote, advocate and develop support of the public park facilities, recreational programming and community services, cultural activities, including visual performing and public art and civic events in the redwood city community.

$351k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$309k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Human Services$309kArts & Culture$246kRecreation & Sports$223kHousing & Shelter$50kYouth Development$20kEducation$15kFood & Nutrition$7k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $32k
  • $250k+1 grant · $309k
$10,700
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY$308,959
PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP$10,700
FARAH SHAIKH NOORANI DANCE$10,700
ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER CULTURAL CENTER$10,700
BRAVEMAKER$5,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%CITY OF REDWOOD CITY: $309k → 7%UNAMESA ASSSOCIATION: $22k → 8%AMERICA SCORES BAY AREA: $20k → 10%FAIROAKS COMMUNITY CENTER: $50k → 7%UNAMESA ASSSOCIATION: $10k → 8%ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER CULTURAL CENTER: $11k → 10%REDWOOD CITY LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $15k → 7%CASA CIRCULO CULTURAL: $12k → 7%BRAVEMAKER: $8k → 7%FARAH SHAIKH NOORANI DANCE: $11k → 7%CITY OF REDWOOD CITY: $182k → 7%REDWOOD CITY PARKS RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT: $94k → 7%REDWOOD CITY PARKS RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION: $74k → 7%REDWOOD CITY PARKS RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT: $10k → 7%REDWOOD CITY PARKS RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT: $9k → 7%150TH CELEBRATION COMMITTEE: $5k → 7%PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP: $11k → 7%BRAVEMAKER: $7k → 7%BRAVEMAKER: $5k → 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.
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 22% of Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 78%.

Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$730k · 3 repeat orgs$140k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +123% since the first grant, against +15% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
6

Total granted

$730k
$108k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+123%
+15%

Still filing today

67%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $32k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
Arts & CultureRecreation & SportsHealthEducationFood & NutritionOther
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

  • CO
    City of Redwood City
    7× · 2017–2024 · $677k
  • UA
    Unamesa Association
    2× · 2017–2018 · $32k · revenue -52%
  • B
    BRAVEMAKER
    3× · 2019–2024 · $21k · revenue +123%

Funded once

  • FC
    FAIROAKS COMMUNITY CENTER
    one grant, 2021 · $50k
  • BA
    BAY AREA SCORESgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +278%
  • RC
    REDWOOD CITY LIBRARY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -19%
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
San Francisco Filipino Cultural Center
Arts & Culture
2
San Francisco Basque Folkloric Groups
Arts & Culture
3
Api Cultural CenterInc Oakland Asian Cultural Center

Oakland Asian Cultural Center builds vibrant communities through Asian and Pacific Islander American (APIA) arts and cultural programs that foster intergenerational and cross-cultural dialogue, cultural identity, collaborations, and social…

Recreation & Sports
4
Rhythmix Cultural Works

Rhythmix Cultural Works RCW is a community cultural arts center that brings people of all ages together for high quality arts experiences in music, dance, theater, exhibits and arts education. RCW seeks to promote cultural awareness,…

Arts & Culture
5
Clarion Performing Arts Center

We are a non-profit organization dedicated to empowering the Asian American community in the Bay Area and beyond. We provide equitable access to our arts and cultural programs.

Arts & Culture
6
San Francisco Independent Film Festival

SF IndieFest presents important independent narrative, documentary, and short films from around the world.

Arts & Culture
7
Indian Dance Training Center

Indian Dance Training Center (IDTC) is a community development organizationaimed at empowering the youth through cultural dance training of traditional SouthAsian dance styles as well as classical theater. IDTC provides trainings,…

Arts & Culture
8
Alki Art Fair

To produce and promote west seattle's premier summer arts showcase on alki beach. our goal is to advance art education and appreciation while encouraging community involvement and cultural diversity for the community's benefit.

Arts & Culture
9
Lei Pua Ala Foundation

Empower communites through arts, culture, humanities civil service

Civil Rights
10
Japantown Cultural Society
Education
11
San Francisco High School of the Arts

San Francisco Arts and Science Academy (ASA) provides TK5 grade students with a strong foundation in the arts, language, math, and science, fostering creativity, curiosity, and character development. Our bilingual, hands-on curriculum…

Education
12
Monterey Bay Chinese Association

Provide Chinese Culture and Help to Advance social, economic well-being of Chinese American at Monterey Bay, California.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Incredible Edible Mid-Peninsula. 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

10 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. 10 of the 12 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

City of Redwood City: $676,914 · OtherCity of Redwood CityFAIROAKS COMMUNITY CENTER: $50,000 · OtherFAIROAKS COMMUNITY CENTERBRAVEMAKER: $20,685 · Arts & CultureCASA CIRCULO CULTURAL: $11,509 · Arts & CulturePacific Islander Community Partnership: $10,700 · Arts & CultureNoorani Dance: $10,700 · Arts & CultureAsian Pacific Islander Cultural Center: $10,700 · Arts & CultureUnamesa Association: $32,010 · HealthBAY AREA SCORES: $20,000 · Recreation & SportsREDWOOD CITY PARKS AND ARTS FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsREDWOOD CITY LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $15,000 · EducationINCREDIBLE EDIBLE MID-PENINSULA: $6,750 · Food & Nutrition
Other$726,914Arts & Culture$64,294Health$32,010Recreation & Sports$25,000Education$15,000Food & Nutrition$6,750

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 budgetUnamesa Association: $32,010 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetBRAVEMAKER: $20,685 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetBAY AREA SCORES: $20,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetREDWOOD CITY LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetCASA CIRCULO CULTURAL: $11,509 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetPacific Islander Community Partnership: $10,700 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetNoorani Dance: $10,700 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetAsian Pacific Islander Cultural Center: $10,700 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetREDWOOD CITY PARKS AND ARTS FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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.

Silicon Valley Commun…The San Francisco Fou…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA17× affinity7 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation. 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%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation 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 12 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 Redwood City Parks and Arts’ 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