Skip to content
Housing Trust Silicon Valley at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Housing Trust Silicon Valley

Our mission at HOUSING TRUST SILICON VALLEY, is to use transformative housing finance and public and private partnerships to create more equitable and affordable communities.

$323k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2017 to 2025.

Housing & Shelter$2.0MHuman Services$394kFood & Nutrition$240kPhilanthropy$150kCommunity Improvement$100kArts & Culture$50kReligion$20k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $313,783, the rows itemized in this filing. The $322,874 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,091 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–50k2 grants · $64k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $250k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$314M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF NORTH RICHMOND$50,000
SCHOOL OF ARTS AND CULTURE AT MHP$50,000
BLACK CULTURAL ZONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION$50,000
RICHMOND NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC$50,000
SPANISH SPEAKING UNITY COUNCIL OF ALAMEDA COUNTY INC$50,000
SACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE$38,783
YES ON 5 CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFE AFFORDABLE COMMUNITIES$25,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–25, $1.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 31% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%NPH ACTION FUND POLITICAL ISSUES COMMITTEE: $300k → 10%PATH: $61k → 14%Gilroy Compassion Center: $142k → 8%GILROY COMPASSION CENTER: $48k → 8%FAMILY SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: $9k → 8%BILL WILSON CENTER: $472k → 8%Bill Wilson Center: $70k → 8%BILL WILSON CENTER: $35k → 8%SACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE: $39k → 8%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

62%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 5 repeat orgs$1.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +120% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
8

Total granted

$1.7M
$735k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+120%
+10%

Still filing today

80%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $314k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionArts & CultureOther
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

  • BW
    BILL WILSON CENTER
    3× · 2017–2021 · $577k · revenue +120%
  • SC
    SOUTH COUNTY COMPASSION CENTER
    2× · 2018–2019 · $190k · revenue +591% · 58% of their budget
  • CH
    CHARITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
    2× · 2021–2024 · $160k · revenue +50%

Funded once

  • NA
    NPH Action Fund
    one grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue 0%
  • HC
    Hopes Corner Inc
    one grant, 2019 · $240k · revenue +19% · 26% of their budget
  • P
    PATH
    one grant, 2023 · $61k · revenue +10%
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
Solano Affordable Housing Foundation
Housing & Shelter
2
Habitat Community Housing Development Inc

Development of affordable housing

—
3
Community Housing Council
Housing & Shelter
4
Housing Help of San Diego

The specific purpose of Housing Help of San Diego (HHOSD) is to provide supportive services and tailored solutions with a goal of obtaining and maintaining affordable housing.

Housing & Shelter
5
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa

Catholic charities creates access to opportunities for self-sufficiency by providing innovative and compassionate services to people of all backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures.

Human Services
6
Bay Area Community Services Inc

BACS' mission is to uplift under-served individuals and their families by doing "whatever it takes." BACS helps people experiencing homelessness, housing insecurity, or behavioural health challenges while balancing other complications like…

—
7
Bay Area Community Services Housing Corp

Improve the quality of life for individuals in Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Solano County, Monterey County, Sacramento County and the surrounding area in the State of California.

Housing & Shelter
8
Abode Services

Abode services offers housing programs linked to supportive services for homeless families, single adults and youth. housing options include permanent supportive housing rental subsidy assistance, rapid rehousing and emergency shelter.…

Housing & Shelter
9
Community Housing Sonoma County

Community Housing Sonoma County creates supportive housing communities for people living with disabling conditions, especially veterans.

Housing & Shelter
10
Union Station Homeless Services

We work to end homelessness through housing solutions, supportive services, and connection to community. we advocate for equitable and just systems that ensure all individuals and families will have a safe place they can call home.

Human Services
11
Community Human Services Corporation

Chs empowers individuals and families to live in stable housing, connect to community resources, build relationships and access quality food.

Human Services
12
Opport-Unity

We provide low income housing

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Family Supportive Housing Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hopes Corner Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 21 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
10/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BILL WILSON CENTER: $577,093 · Human ServicesBILL WILSON CENTERNPH Action Fund: $300,000 · Human ServicesNPH Action FundSOUTH COUNTY COMPASSION CENTER: $190,000 · Human ServicesSOUTH COUNTY COMPASSION CENTERPATH: $61,400 · Human Services+2 more: $47,874 · Human ServicesSV HOME: $699,260 · Housing & ShelterSV HOMECHARITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY: $160,000 · Housing & ShelterCHARITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP …ABODE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: $60,000 · Housing & ShelterABODE PROPERTY MANAGEMENTFAMILY SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: $90,910 · OtherFAMILY SUP…RICHMOND NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC: $50,000 · OtherRICHMOND N…COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP OF NORTH RICHMOND: $50,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY …CITY OF SAN JOSE - HOUSING DEPARTMENT: $25,000 · OtherCITY OF SA…Californians for Safe and Affordable Housing: $25,000 · OtherCalifornia…HOLY FAMILY: $20,000 · OtherHOLY FAMIL…WILLOW GLEN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $20,000 · OtherWILLOW GLE…Hopes Corner Inc: $240,000 · Food & NutritionHopes Cor…Silicon Valley Community Foundation: $150,000 · PhilanthropySPANISH SPEAKING UNITY COUNCIL OF ALAMEDA COUNTY INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementBLACK CULTURAL ZONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $50,000 · Community ImprovementSCHOOL OF ARTS AND CULTURE AT MHP: $50,000 · Arts & Culture
Human Services$1,176,367Housing & Shelter$919,260Other$280,910Food & Nutrition$240,000Philanthropy$150,000Community Improvement$100,000Arts & Culture$50,000

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 budgetSV HOME: $699,260 over 4y, 20% of budgetBILL WILSON CENTER: $577,093 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetNPH Action Fund: $300,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetHopes Corner Inc: $240,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetSOUTH COUNTY COMPASSION CENTER: $190,000 over 2y, 58% of budgetCHARITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY: $160,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetSilicon Valley Community Foundation: $150,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPATH: $61,400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetABODE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: $60,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSCHOOL OF ARTS AND CULTURE AT MHP: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetSPANISH SPEAKING UNITY COUNCIL OF ALAMEDA COUNTY INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBLACK CULTURAL ZONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE: $38,783 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFAMILY SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INC: $9,091 over 2y, 0.3% 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 Sobrato Family Fo…The San Francisco Fou…Destination Home SV c…Kaiser Foundation Hos…San Jose Mercury News…Second Harvest of Sil…United Way of the Bay…Sunlight GivingCharity Bridge FundThe David and Lucile …Local Initiatives Sup…
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA22.2× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Sobrato Family Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Destination Home SV co Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · San Jose Mercury News Wish Book Fund Inc · Second Harvest of Silicon Valley · United Way of the Bay Area · Sunlight Giving · Charity Bridge Fund · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation

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 Housing Trust Silicon Valley funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Housing Trust Silicon Valley. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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.

    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 21 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 Housing Trust Silicon Valley’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