· Community foundation
The Reddere Foundation CO Silicon Valley Community Foundation
To support excellence in education through programs that increase teacher effectiveness.
Read this first · the figures below need context
97% of The Reddere Foundation CO Silicon Valley Community Foundation’s FY2019 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2019 names 11 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2018, the last year The Reddere Foundation CO Silicon Valley Community Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 12 organizations, $248k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2019.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 12 grants below total $247,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $255,500 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $8,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Foothill-De Anza Community Colleges Foundation | $30,000 |
| Mills College | $30,000 |
| New Teacher Center | $30,000 |
| California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association | $27,500 |
| Silicon Valley Education Foundation | $25,000 |
| Resource Area For Teaching | $25,000 |
| Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Inc | $20,000 |
| American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern CA | $20,000 |
| Center for Excellence in Nonprofits | $10,000 |
| KQED Inc | $10,000 |
| Cleo Eulau Center for Children and Adolescents | $10,000 |
| Partners in School Innovation | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–17, $30k) 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 your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +46% since the first grant, against +45% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call). Read against FY2018, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2019, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- FCFOOTHILL-DEANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOUNDATION3× · 2017–2019 · $65k · revenue +11%
- CCCALIFORNIA COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION2× · 2018–2019 · $58k · revenue ×26
- RARESOURCE AREA FOR TEACHING3× · 2017–2019 · $56k · revenue +94%
Funded once
- ANAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branchesgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $30k · revenue +46%
- PFPENINSULA FAMILY CONNECTIONSgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +47%
- ALAMERICAN LEADERSHIP FORUM - SILICON VALLEYone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -11%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…
The association serves its members by creating resources that enable california school administrators to develop and apply creative leadership and management skills and in turn, improve the educational process for all students.
To promote philanthropy to make santa cruz county a better place to live, now and in the future.we bring together people, ideas, and resources to inspire philanthropy and accomplish great things.
The california dental association is committed to the success of our members in service to their patients and the public.
Ca fwd drives action to identify solutions that can be taken to scale to meet the challenges the state is facing. the organization is driven by the belief that regional solutions across the state will help ensure economic, environmental,…
At san francisco friends school, students learn in a community grounded in the quaker values of reflection, integrity, peaceful problem-solving and stewardship. our teachers challenge students with a dynamic curriculum that inspires…
The mission of the uc davis foundation is to secure, steward and manage private gifts for uc davis.
To enhance the long-term viability of california agriculture through leadership development, which in turn benefits the people and communities that agriculture serves. we grow leaders who make a difference.
The foundation's mission is to improve the oral health of all californians by supporting the dental profession and its efforts to meet community needs.
Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
A private school that cultivates and celebrates the intellectual, imaginative, and humanitarian promise of each student in a community that practices mutual respect, embraces diversity, and inspires passion for learning.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Excellence in Nonprofits and the most unlike its peers is Kara. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 31 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
23 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds MILLS COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds FOOTHILL-DEANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE AREA FOR TEACHING ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN NONPROFITS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INC ↗
- Who funds THE CAMPANILE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SILICON VALLEY EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ACKNOWLEDGE ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds NEW TEACHER CENTER ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE INC ↗
- Who funds KQED INC ↗
- Who funds PENINSULA FAMILY CONNECTIONS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN LEADERSHIP FORUM - SILICON VALLEY ↗
- Who funds PACIFIC SKYLINE COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds FOODCORPS INC ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN SCHOOL INNOVATION ↗
- Who funds KARA ↗
- Who funds ALEARN ↗
- Who funds Tahoe Rim Trail Association ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The Applied Materials Foundation · The Sobrato Family Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · The James and Rebecca Morgan Family Foundation · Atkinson Foundation · Philanthropic Ventures Foundation · The Heising-Simons Foundation · Bright Funds Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Harrington Family Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Reddere Foundation CO Silicon Valley Community Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Foodcorps Inc — 21% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.