Skip to content
Cch Management Corporation at a glance

· Public charity

Cch Management Corporation

To manage affordable housing for low income individuals and families.

$870k
Granted FY2022
39
Grants FY2022
2
States reached
$65k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2020 to 2022.

Housing & Shelter$1.4MEmployment$251k
02FY2022 · 39 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k8 grants · $62k
  • $10k–50k30 grants · $743k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $65k
$17,927
Median grant
2
States reached
$7.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MARGARET MCDOWELL$64,866
FARGO SENIOR CENTER LP$49,519
ANTIOCH HILLCREST$49,346
SOJOURNER TRUTH$48,342
ST MARY'S EPISCOPAL RETIRMENT HOMES INC (CANTERBURY)$46,667
NBA DISCIPLES HOUSING OF GREATER KANSAS CITY MISSOURIE INC$44,329
CCHNC PLAZA DE LAS FLORES$35,038
NBA PECAN GROVE MANOR INC$34,586
ST MARY'S ELDERLY HOUSING$33,475
CROCKETT (CARQUINEZ)$31,697
JARVIS GARDENS$28,498
MOUNTAIN FALLS APARTMENTS INC$26,054
NEARY LAGOON (ARBOR COVE)$25,872
SYCAMORE PLACE II$22,077
CCHNC SOUTH LAKE TOWERS$21,668
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 (FY22–22, $51k) 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%JARVIS GARDENS: $28k → 9%SYCAMORE PLACE II: $22k → 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 46% of Cch Management Corporation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 96% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 50%.

Cch Management Corporationlessmore 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 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
Senior Citizens Housing Dev Corporation of Stonington

Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped, regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).

Housing & Shelter
2
Senior Citizens Housing Development of Claremont Inc

Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped. regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).

Housing & Shelter
3
Evangelical Senior Housing

To house senior citizens whose income make them eligible for rent subsidy through the HUD Section 202 program.

Housing & Shelter
4
Converse County Senior Housing Inc

Provide low-income housing to qualified individuals as outlined by hud.

Housing & Shelter
5
Senior Citizens Housing Develop Corp of Ville Platte

Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped. regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).

—
6
Northwest Retirement Housing Inc Mattie Younkin Manor

The organization's mission is to provide senior housing for seniors in the area of gresham, oregon.

Housing & Shelter
7
Senior Citizens Hsg Develop Corp of Washington

Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped, regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).

Housing & Shelter
8
Church Housing Corp of Phoenixville Aka Episcopal House

Housing for the elderly.

Housing & Shelter
9
Senior Citizens Hsg Develop Corp of Mt Lebanon

Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped, regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).

Housing & Shelter
10
Vernon Senior Citizens Housing Development Corporation

Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped, regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).

Housing & Shelter
11
Senior Citizens Hsg Dev Corp South Boston Inc

Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped, regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).

Housing & Shelter
12
Ncscusa Housing Development Corp Two

Operation of low income housing for the elderly and handicapped, regulated and assisted by the department of housing and urban development (hud).

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Antioch Hillcrest Terrace Inc; the most unlike its peers is St Mary's Episcopal Retirement Homes Inc. 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

26 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. 26 of the 40 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/26
Grantees still filing
23/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHRISTIAN CHURCH HOMES: $731,378 · OtherCHRISTIAN CHURCH HOMESFARGO SENIOR CENTER LP: $49,519 · OtherST MARY'S EPISCOPAL RETIREMENT HOMES INC: $46,667 · Other+18 more: $291,603 · Other+18 moreMARGARET MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES INC: $64,866 · Housing & ShelterMARGARET MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES I…ANTIOCH HILLCREST TERRACE INC: $49,346 · Housing & ShelterANTIOCH HILLCREST TERRACE INCSOJOURNER TRUTH HOUSING INC: $48,342 · Housing & ShelterSOJOURNER TRUTH HOUSING INCNBA DISCIPLES HOUSING OF GREATER KANSAS CITY MISSOURI INC: $44,329 · Housing & ShelterNBA DISCIPLES HOUSING OF GREAT…NBA PECAN GROVE MANOR INC PECAN GROVE MANOR: $34,586 · Housing & ShelterNBA PECAN GROVE MANOR INC PECA…CROCKETT SENIOR HOUSING INC: $31,697 · Housing & ShelterCROCKETT SENIOR HOUSING INCNEARY LAGOON SENIOR HOUSING INC: $25,872 · Housing & ShelterNEARY LAGOON SENIOR HOUSING IN…CCHNC SOUTH LAKE TOWERS INC: $21,668 · Housing & ShelterVISALIA SENIOR HOUSING II INC: $15,837 · Housing & ShelterCEDAR STREET SENIOR APARTMENTS INC: $15,456 · Housing & ShelterCCHNC VISALIA SENIOR HSG CORP: $15,313 · Housing & ShelterTREEHOUSE SENIOR APARTMENTS INC: $14,916 · Housing & Shelter+5 more: $49,484 · Housing & Shelter+5 moreJARVIS GARDENS SENIOR APATMENTSINC: $28,498 · Human ServicesSYCAMORE PLACE II SENIOR HOUSING CORPORATION: $22,077 · Human Services
Other$1,119,167Housing & Shelter$431,712Human Services$50,575

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHRISTIAN CHURCH HOMES: $731,378 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetMARGARET MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES INC: $64,866 over 1y, 8.8% of budgetANTIOCH HILLCREST TERRACE INC: $49,346 over 1y, 8.5% of budgetSOJOURNER TRUTH HOUSING INC: $48,342 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetST MARY'S EPISCOPAL RETIREMENT HOMES INC: $46,667 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetNBA DISCIPLES HOUSING OF GREATER KANSAS CITY MISSOURI INC: $44,329 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetNBA PECAN GROVE MANOR INC PECAN GROVE MANOR: $34,586 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetST MARY'S ELDERLY HOUSING CORPORATION INC: $33,475 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCROCKETT SENIOR HOUSING INC: $31,697 over 1y, 8.5% of budgetJARVIS GARDENS SENIOR APATMENTSINC: $28,498 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetMOUNTAIN FALLS APARTMENTS INC: $26,054 over 1y, 12% of budgetNEARY LAGOON SENIOR HOUSING INC: $25,872 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetSYCAMORE PLACE II SENIOR HOUSING CORPORATION: $22,077 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetCCHNC SOUTH LAKE TOWERS INC: $21,668 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetVISALIA SENIOR HOUSING II INC: $15,837 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetCEDAR STREET SENIOR APARTMENTS INC: $15,456 over 1y, 11% of budgetCCHNC VISALIA SENIOR HSG CORP: $15,313 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetTREEHOUSE SENIOR APARTMENTS INC: $14,916 over 1y, 2.3% of budget703 CEDAR STREET INC: $13,749 over 1y, 10% of budgetABRAM HOUSING CORPORATION: $13,151 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetANTIOCH RIVERTOWN SENIOR HOUSING INC: $11,408 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetPROVIDENCE SENIOR HOUSING CORP: $10,658 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetBRENTWOOD 202 SENIOR HOUSING INC: $9,779 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetPORTLAND DISCIPLES HOUSING INC POWELL VISTA MANOR: $8,779 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCentral California Senior Housing Inc: $6,519 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetNBA MOUNTAIN FALLS APARTMENTS II INC: $6,260 over 1y, 4.4% 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 Cch Management Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cch Management Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
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
    11report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 40 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 2022, released 2022. 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 no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Cch Management’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