Skip to content
Mid Florida Homeless Coalition Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Mid Florida Homeless Coalition Inc

To promote partnerships that will reduce and prevent homelessness in citrus, hernando, lake, and sumter counties.

$1.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$481k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Human Services$2.3MPhilanthropy$695kHealth$498kCommunity Improvement$207kReligion$171kPublic Benefit$123kHousing & Shelter$95kFood & Nutrition$43kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $1,180,541, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,740,920 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $560,379 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

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $323k
  • $250k+2 grants · $858k
$122,145
Median grant
1
States reached
$781k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DEPAUL$480,669
THE SALVATION ARMY OF LAKE & SUM$376,871
CITRUS COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD$122,145
SALVARE INC DBA DAWN CENTER OF$101,385
UNITED WAY OF LAKE & SUMTER COUNTIE$99,471
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, $2.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 95% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DEPAUL: $481k → 12%SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DEPAUL: $444k → 12%SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DEPAUL: $342k → 12%BLACK DIAMOND FOUNDATION: $25k → 17%SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DEPAUL: $217k → 12%SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DEPAUL: $208k → 12%CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE ST PETER: $87k → 12%SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DEPAUL: $44k → 12%CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE ST PETE: $41k → 12%CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE ST PETE: $23k → 12%DAYSTAR LIFE CENTER: $21k → 17%DAYSTAR LIFE CENTER: $15k → 17%DAYSTAR LIFE CENTER: $7k → 17%LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION CENTER: $57k → 10%LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $42k → 10%LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION CENTER: $8k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.1M · 12 repeat orgs$236k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +42% since the first grant, against +7% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
5

Total granted

$5.1M
$236k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
+7%

Still filing today

75%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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 ServicesCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyReligionHealthOther
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

  • SO
    SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOUTH PINELLAS INC
    6× · 2019–2025 · $1.7M · revenue +365%
  • SI
    SALVARE INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $322k · revenue +42%
  • LB
    Lifestream Behavioral Center Inc
    2× · 2018–2019 · $238k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • RA
    REFUGE AT JUMPER CREEK INC
    one grant, 2017 · $171k · revenue -49% · 76% of their budget
  • BD
    BLACK DIAMOND FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +7%
  • FA
    FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue +6%
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
Suncoast Center Inc

For 80 years, suncoast center, inc. has held true to its mission of "strengthening, protecting, and restoring lives for a healthy community" by providing a comprehensive range of evidence-based services that address emotional wellness,…

Health
2
The Road Home

The primary mission is to help individuals and families step out of homelessness and back into the community in salt lake county. the road home meets this mission by providing housing-focused, emergency shelter programs, along with…

Human Services
3
The Spring of Tampa Bay Inc

The Spring of Tampa Bay prevents domestic violence, protects victims and promotes change in lives, families and communities.

—
4
Shelter Agencies for Families in East Texas

To provide shelter to abused families.

Human Services
5
Lake County Crisis Center

A safe place is the leading advocate for eliminating domestic violence & human trafficking in northern illinois.

—
6
Christian Care Center Inc

Transformed lives leading to stronger families and real life in Christ

Human Services
7
Life Resource Services of Jackson County

Our mission is to help those who are struggling with homelessness, by providing resources to help rebuild their lives.

Human Services
8
Haven of Lake and Sumter Counties Inc

To provide temporary shelter, support, and services to domestic violence and sexual assault victims and their children. to educate the public about issues in relation to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Human Services
9
Lake Area Helping Hands Inc

Homeless shelter

Housing & Shelter
10
Hubbard House Inc

Safety, empowerment, and social change for victims of domestic violence and their families. to that end we offer a full compendium of services for victims of domestic violence.

Human Services
11
Clackamas Women's Services

Breaking the isolation of domestic and sexual violence.

Human Services
12
Coalition for the Homeless of Central Florida Inc

The purpose of the organization is to transform the lives of homeless men, women, and children by providing crucial services to end their crisis of homelessness.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of Citrus County Inc; the most unlike its peers is Citrus County Abuse Shelter Associa. 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

13 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. 13 of the 17 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SALVATION ARMY: $1,182,882 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYUNITED WAY OF CITRUS COUNTY INC: $580,685 · OtherUNITED WAY OF CITRUS COUNTY INCCITRUS COUNTY FOSTER PARENT ASSOCIATION INC: $372,145 · OtherCITRUS COUNTY FOSTER PARENT ASSOCIATION INCLAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS: $122,724 · OtherCITRUS COUNTY ABUSE SHELTER ASSOCIA: $99,231 · Other+1 more: $10,000 · OtherSOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOUTH PINELLAS INC: $1,735,067 · Human ServicesSOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOUTH PINELLA…CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF ST PETERSBURG INC: $151,023 · Human ServicesCATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF ST PETERSBURG…LAKE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY INC: $107,184 · Human Services+2 more: $68,012 · Human ServicesSALVARE INC: $322,416 · Community ImprovementFLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS INC: $20,000 · Community Improvement+1 more: $10,000 · Community ImprovementLifestream Behavioral Center Inc: $237,654 · HealthUnited Way of Lake and Sumter Counties Inc: $188,873 · PhilanthropyREFUGE AT JUMPER CREEK INC: $171,130 · Religion
Other$2,367,667Human Services$2,061,286Community Improvement$352,416Health$237,654Philanthropy$188,873Religion$171,130

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 budgetSOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL SOUTH PINELLAS INC: $1,735,067 over 6y, 1.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF CITRUS COUNTY INC: $580,685 over 6y, 11% of budgetSALVARE INC: $322,416 over 8y, 4.4% of budgetLifestream Behavioral Center Inc: $237,654 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetUnited Way of Lake and Sumter Counties Inc: $188,873 over 6y, 2.4% of budgetREFUGE AT JUMPER CREEK INC: $171,130 over 1y, 76% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF ST PETERSBURG INC: $151,023 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetLAKE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY INC: $107,184 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetCITRUS COUNTY ABUSE SHELTER ASSOCIA: $99,231 over 4y, 4.2% of budgetDAYSTAR LIFE CENTER INC: $43,012 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetBLACK DIAMOND FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetFLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREALTORS ASSOCIATION OF LAKE & SUMTER COUNTIES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% 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.

Community Foundation …Publix Super Markets …US Family Foundation …Duke Energy FoundationThe Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation of Tampa Bay IncFL17.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Tampa Bay Inc · Publix Super Markets Charities Inc · US Family Foundation Inc · Duke Energy Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Mid Florida Homeless Coalition Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mid Florida Homeless Coalition Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • Salvare Inc: 55% of income from government
  • Lifestream Behavioral Center Inc: 5% of income from government
  • United Way of Lake and Sumter Counties Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 Mid Florida Homeless Coalition Inc?

Find your warmest path to Mid Florida Homeless Coalition 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 17 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 Mid Florida Homeless Coalition’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