Skip to content
Revitalize East Bay at a glance

· Public charity

Revitalize East Bay

To promote the common good and social welfare of the people of the East Bay Area by educating the public and advocating on important issues of public policy that will improve the quality of life and governance in the East Bay Area.

$704k
Granted FY2025still arriving
15
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$267k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 15 grants below total $684,294, the rows itemized in this filing. The $703,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $19,206 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

  • $10k–50k12 grants · $317k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
  • $250k+1 grant · $267k
$30,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$25k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP FOR OA$267,000
OAKLAND PARKS AND RECREATION$50,000
URBAN COMPASSION PROJE$50,000
100 BLACK MEN OF THE BAY AREA$35,000
FAMILIES IN ACTION FOR QUALIT$33,000
LAKE MERRITT CONSERVANCY$31,794
YOUTH ALIVE$30,000
CRISTO REY DE LA SALLE EAST B$30,000
CITIZENS OAKLAND$30,000
FOUNDATIONAL OAKLAND UNITES$29,000
ABUNDANCE NETWORK FOUNDATION$25,000
EMPOWER OAKLAND COMMITTEE$25,000
BLACK ACTION ALLIANCE$22,500
BEAUTIFICATION COUNCIL$15,000
OAKLAND UNITED TO RECALL SHEN$11,000
02The need
02

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 (FY24–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Oaklanders for Common Sense: $31k → 8%Supporters of Recall P Price: $200k → 10%Families for Vibrant Oakland: $150k → 10%RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP FOR OA: $267k → 12%BLACK ACTION ALLIANCE: $23k → 8%Families for a Safer Oakland: $170k → 10%ABUNDANCE NETWORK FOUNDATION: $25k → 10%EMPOWER OAKLAND COMMITTEE: $25k → 12%Together 4 Oaklands Families: $110k → 10%FOUNDATIONAL OAKLAND UNITES: $29k → 10%OAKLAND PARKS AND RECREATION: $50k → 10%LAKE MERRITT CONSERVANCY: $32k → 10%CITIZENS OAKLAND: $30k → 10%URBAN COMPASSION PROJE: $50k → 10%CRISTO REY DE LA SALLE EAST B: $30k → 10%YOUTH ALIVE: $30k → 10%FAMILIES IN ACTION FOR QUALIT: $33k → 10%BEAUTIFICATION COUNCIL: $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 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
Impact Oakland Now
Community Improvement
2
Oaklanders Together - for a Safer Oakland

To support Citywide Violence Reduction Services ballot measure in Oakland, CA.

—
3
Invest in Our Oakland

The committee ran a campaign supporting Oakland Ballot Measure T that would modernize Oaklands outdated regressive business tax structure to hold big wealthy corporations accountable to paying their fair share of taxes and would provide…

—
4
Black American Political Association of California

Educate and advocacy

Civil Rights
5
Alkebulan Fiscal Sponsors

To uplift the community

Health
6
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
7
The Oakland Athletics Community Fund
—
8
Oakland Youth Vote

Run a campaign to pass a ballot measure to allow 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote in Oakland School Board elections.

—
9
Oakland Fair Elections

Supporting the passage of Oakland Measure W for the November 2022 election

—
10
Protect Our Right to Vote

Opposition of local San Francisco ballot initiative to consolidate city elections to even-year.

—
11
Opportunity City Political Action Committee

Local ballot issue committee

—
12
Walk Oakland Bike Oakland

Walk Oakland Bike Oakland (WOBO), founded in 2006, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving neighborhood livability, vitality, and sustainability by making Oakland a better place to walk and bike. We engage residents, workers,…

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Youth Alive. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

9 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. 9 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP FOR OA: $267,000 · OtherRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP FOR OASupporters Of Recall Pamela Price: $200,000 · OtherSupporters Of Recall Pamela PriceFamilies for a Safer Oakland: $170,000 · OtherFamilies for a Safer OaklandFamilies for Vibrant Oakland: $150,000 · OtherFamilies for Vibrant OaklandTogether 4 Oaklands Families: $110,000 · OtherTogether 4 Oaklands FamiliesURBAN COMPASSION PROJECT: $50,000 · Other+9 more: $278,555 · Other+9 moreOakland Parks and Recreation Foundation: $50,000 · Recreation & SportsCITIZENS OAKLAND: $30,000 · Arts & CultureAbundance Network Education: $25,000 · Science & TechBEAUTIFICATION COUNCIL: $15,000 · Community Improvement
Other$1,225,555Recreation & Sports$50,000Arts & Culture$30,000Science & Tech$25,000Community Improvement$15,000

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 budgetSupporters Of Recall Pamela Price: $200,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetFOUNDATIONAL OAKLAND UNITES: $40,000 over 1y, 86% of budget100 BLACK MEN OF THE BAY AREA INC: $35,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetCITIZENS OAKLAND: $30,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetYOUTH ALIVE: $30,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Revitalize East Bay funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Revitalize East Bay. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’23’24
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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, FY23–24
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Revitalize East Bay?

    Find your warmest path to Revitalize East Bay 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 Revitalize East 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