Loading…
· Public charity
MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION
In conjunction with related organizations, MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION's mission is to provide safe, affordable housing of high quality to those in need; to establish stability and opportunity in the lives of residents; and to foster diverse communities that allow people from all ethnic, social and economic backgrounds to live in dignity,…
$3.2M
Granted FY2024
11
Grants
1
Communities
$2.4M
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 40% of MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2021
residenthomelessnesscross-sectorracialsharedpowerchange
2022
homelessnesscross-sectorracialsharedpowerchange
2023
passthrough partyparty iighomelessnesscross-sectorracialsharedpower
2024
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 11 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $50k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $298k
- $250k+2 grants · $2.8M
$18,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$359M
Total assets
Largest grants
- MID-PENINSULA BAKER PARK INC$2,431,328
- MID-PENINSULA PICKERING INC$351,830
- MP 21 SOLEDAD STREET LP$152,244
- MIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION$85,480
- MIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION$60,000
- NON PROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS OF NORTHERN CA$18,000
- HOUSING LEADERSHIP COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO$12,300
- NEW WAY HOMES INC$10,000
- SVHOME$10,000
- EASY BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS$7,750
- CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM$7,500
02The need
04
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $46k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
83%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$20M · 11 repeat orgs$4.2M to everyone else
11 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
11
8
Total granted
$20M
$4.0M
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+109%
+270%
Still filing today
100%
25%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $162k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Housing & ShelterHuman ServicesOther
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
- MRMIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION8× · 2017–2024 · $11M · revenue +109% · 50% of their budget
- MHMID-PENINSULA HALF MOON BAY INC2× · 2022–2023 · $3.3M · revenue +3983% · 58% of their budget
- MPMID-PENINSULA PICKERING INC2× · 2023–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +3428% · 48% of their budget
Funded once
- CRCOMMUNITY REVITALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPone grant, 2023 · $2.2M
- 5A5TH AND MENDOCINO PARTNERS OWNER LLCone grant, 2023 · $1.6M
- MPMP PICKERING INC2× · 2020–2021 · $235k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
California Housing Partner Corporation
The California Housing Partnership Corporation creates and preserves affordable and sustainable homes for Californians with low incomes by providing expert financial and policy solutions to nonprofit and public partners.
Unclassified
2
Mutual Housing Management
To be an exceptional steward of the portfolio of multifamily housing owned by mutual housing california and other 501(c)(3) entities (or limited partnerships in which a 501(c)(3) entity is a general partner) to support long-term…
Housing & Shelter
3
Sacramento Neighborhood Housing
To improve and restore district-wide neighborhoods for the benefit of the residents.
Housing & Shelter
4
Insight Housing
Ensuring everyone in our community has a home through supportive, equitable and sustainable housing solutions.
Human Services
5
Homes for California
Homes for Sonoma is a nonprofit developer creating quality workforce housing options that support safe and sustainable community, and finds efficient, scalable solutions to address the housing crisis in Sonoma County and throughout…
Housing & Shelter
6
Mutual Housing California Formerly Known
See schedule o.develop, manage, and support sustainable affordable housing where residents are partners in advancing equitable communities.
Housing & Shelter
7
Mid-Peninsula Woodlands Corporation
The corporation was created to provide non-profit sponsors with short-term loans for the development of low and moderate income housing; to assist non-profit sponsors in the development of low and moderate income housing; to lessen the…
—
8
Community Housing Sonoma County
Community Housing Sonoma County creates supportive housing communities for people living with disabling conditions, especially veterans.
Housing & Shelter
9
Ridge Point Non-Profit Housing
To provide affordable housing to low-income households in the greater san francisco bay area.
Housing & Shelter
10
Napa Valley Community Housing
To develop, own and manage affordable housing for low income residents of napa county.
Health
11
Housing Choices Coalition for Persons
To provide housing options for people with developmental and other disabilities.
Housing & Shelter
12
Burbank Housingsr Corporation
The corporation owns, operates, and manages affordable rental housing.
—
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mid-Peninsula Scotts Valley Inc and the most unlike its peers is Tides Center. 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
21 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/21
Grantees still filing
14/21
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Housing & Shelter$14,541,182Other$9,800,337Human Services$45,500
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 MIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds RIVERWOOD PLACE ↗
- Who funds MID-PENINSULA HALF MOON BAY INC ↗
- Who funds MID-PENINSULA PICKERING INC ↗
- Who funds NPH -CAMPAIGN DONATION ↗
- Who funds HOUSING LEADERSHIP COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO ↗
- Who funds EASY BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS ↗
- Who funds THE FARM INC ↗
- Who funds HOUSING CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds MP SCOTTS VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds NEW WAY HOMES INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM ↗
- Who funds MP SEVEN TREES INC ↗
- Who funds SVHOME ACTION FUND ↗
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.
Eden Housing IncCA18.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Eden Housing Inc · Sunlight Giving · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · First Community Housing · Merritt Community Capital · Northern California Carpenters Regional · The San Francisco Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc
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 organisation MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: RIVERWOOD PLACE.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~1 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 8 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 770316333 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on RIVERWOOD PLACE, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 1 months of cash on hand.
- WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 62% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Midpen Housing Corporation?
Find your warmest path to Midpen Housing Corporation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines