Skip to content
Apex Community Care Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Apex Community Care Inc

Apex coummunity care provides temporary housing,housing assistance, and counseling to persons with aids and those who are hiv positive.

$1.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$545k
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Health$2.3MHuman Services$140k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $495k
  • $250k+2 grants · $796k
$166,833
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FAMILY CENTERS INC$544,862
OPTIMUS HEALTH CARE$251,048
MID FAIRFIELD AIDS PROJECT$197,396
LIBERATION PROGRAM$166,833
GBAPP Inc$131,210
Anchor Health Initiative Corp$10,000
DANBURY HOSPITAL$6,821
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.

None of its grants could be placed against low income need for this view.

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 5 repeat orgs$141k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +60% since the first grant, against +54% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 5 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

5
2

Total granted

$2.3M
$141k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+60%
+54%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $141k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • FC
    FAMILY CENTERS INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $872k · revenue +60%
  • MF
    MID FAIRFIELD AIDS PROJECT
    3× · 2022–2024 · $371k · revenue +209%
  • LP
    LIBERATION PROGRAMS INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $268k · revenue +124%

Funded once

  • GI
    GBAPP INC
    one grant, 2024 · $131k · revenue -9%
  • AH
    ANCHOR HEALTH INITIATIVE CORPgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue +54%
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
04the grantee network

7 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FAMILY CENTERS INC: $872,032 · OtherFAMILY CENTERS INCMID FAIRFIELD AIDS PROJECT: $370,585 · OtherMID FAIRFIELD AIDS PROJECTWestern Connecticut Health Network Inc: $229,635 · OtherWestern Connecticut Health Network IncOPTIMUS HEALTH CARE INC: $577,481 · HealthOPTIMUS HEALTH CARE INCLIBERATION PROGRAMS INC: $268,297 · HealthLIBERATION PROGRAMS INC+1 more: $10,000 · HealthGBAPP INC: $131,210 · Human Services
Other$1,472,252Health$855,778Human Services$131,210

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFAMILY CENTERS INC: $872,032 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetOPTIMUS HEALTH CARE INC: $577,481 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetMID FAIRFIELD AIDS PROJECT: $370,585 over 3y, 8.1% of budgetLIBERATION PROGRAMS INC: $268,297 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetWestern Connecticut Health Network Inc: $229,635 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetGBAPP INC: $131,210 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetANCHOR HEALTH INITIATIVE CORP: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Apex Community Care Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Apex Community Care Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 22%
  • Gbapp Inc: 25% of income from government
  • Liberation Programs Inc: 24% of income from government
  • Optimus Health Care Inc: 22% of income from government
  • Family Centers Inc: 20% of income from government
  • Mid Fairfield Aids Project: 10% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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 Apex Community Care Inc?

Find your warmest path to Apex Community Care Inc 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 7 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 Apex Community Care’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