Skip to content
Midpen Housing Corporation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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,…

$2.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1.9M
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.

Housing & Shelter$22MCommunity Improvement$2.2MPublic Benefit$235k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $64k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $326k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.9M
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$441M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MID-PENINSULA HERMANAS INC$1,900,392
MP 21 SOLEDAD STREET LP$188,171
MIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION$137,973
NON PROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS OF NORTHERN CA$12,500
HOUSING LEADERSHIP COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO COUNTY$11,500
ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC$10,000
HOUSING SANTA CRUZ COUNTY$10,000
SVHOME$10,000
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM$10,000
EASY BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS$8,000
HOUSING CALIFORNIA$7,500
MONTEREY BAY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP INC$7,500
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 (FY21–25, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HOUSING CALIFORNIA: $14k → 12%HOUSING CALIFORNIA: $8k → 12%HOUSING CALIFORNIA: $6k → 12%NEW WAY HOMES INC: $10k → 13%HOUSING CALIFORNIA: $6k → 12%NEW WAY HOMES INC: $10k → 13%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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$21M · 14 repeat orgs$5.9M to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
7

Total granted

$21M
$4.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+7%
+270%

Still filing today

86%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 17% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.9M went to new ones.

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

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

’17’21’22’23’24’25
Housing & ShelterHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • MR
    MIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $11M · revenue +127% · 50% of their budget
  • MH
    MID-PENINSULA HALF MOON BAY INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $3.3M · revenue +343% · 58% of their budget
  • NH
    NON-PROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
    6× · 2020–2025 · $71k · revenue +241%

Funded once

  • CR
    COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP
    one grant, 2023 · $2.2M
  • 5A
    5TH AND MENDOCINO PARTNERS OWNER LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $1.6M
  • MP
    MP PICKERING INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $235k
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
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
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…

Housing & Shelter
3
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
4
Mutual Housing California Formerly Known As Sacramento Mutual Housing Association

The mission of mutual housing california is to develop, manage, and support sustainable affordable housing where residents are partners in advancing equitable communities.

Housing & Shelter
5
Hip Housing Development Corporation

To alleviate and improve the housing condition of the needy, physically or mentally handicapped, elderly persons and others whose housing needs are not being adequately met in San Mateo County, CA.

Housing & Shelter
6
Homes for California Dba Homes for Sonoma

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
7
Minnesota Housing Partnership

Minnesota housing partnership (mhp) expands housing and community development opportunity by leading collaborative work to promote systems change and grow develoopment capacity.

—
8
Housing Connector

Housing connector partners with property owners and managers to lower barriers to housing and increase our region's affordable housing capacity.

Housing & Shelter
9
Howard Street Development Corporation

To provide housing for low income persons, and to support tenderloin neighborhood development corporation in carrying out its purpose.

Housing & Shelter
10
Heritage Housing Partners

To promote historic preservation and neighborhood revitalization by developing, owning, and operating rental or for sale low-income housing property.

Housing & Shelter
11
Housing Resource Center of Monterey Coun

The mission of the housing resource center (hrc) of monterey county is to provide a continuum of housing resources for homeless prevention and affordable housing opportunities. hrc fosters community stability, stronger communities, and…

Housing & Shelter
12
Inland Socal Housing Collective

Creating solutions to improve housing outcomes for renters, homebuyers, homeowners, and those experiencing homelessness through education, advocacy and access to resources in the inland socal region.

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mid-Peninsula Scotts Valley Inc; the most unlike its peers is Committee to Save Caltrain Yes on Measure Rr. 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

24 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/24
Grantees still filing
11/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION: $11,165,674 · Housing & ShelterMIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATIONMID-PENINSULA HALF MOON BAY INC: $3,325,752 · Housing & ShelterMID-PENINSULA HALF MOON BAY INC+7 more: $239,729 · Housing & ShelterMID-PENINSULA BAKER PARK INC: $3,677,864 · OtherMID-PENINSULA BAKER PARK INCCOMMUNITY REVITALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP: $2,153,300 · OtherCOMMUNITY REVITALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPMID-PENINSULA PICKERING INC: $1,951,830 · OtherMID-PENINSULA PICKERING INCMID-PENINSULA HERMANAS INC: $1,900,392 · OtherMID-PENINSULA HERMANAS INC5TH AND MENDOCINO PARTNERS OWNER LLC: $1,573,988 · Other5TH AND MENDOCINO PARTNERS OWNER LLC+6 more: $641,526 · Other+6 moreHOUSING CALIFORNIA INC: $33,000 · Human ServicesNEW WAY HOMES INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC: $10,000 · Community ImprovementMONTEREY BAY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP INC: $7,500 · Community Improvement
Housing & Shelter$14,731,155Other$11,898,900Human Services$53,000Community Improvement$17,500

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 budgetMIDPEN RESIDENT SERVICES CORPORATION: $11,165,674 over 9y, 50% of budgetMID-PENINSULA BAKER PARK INC: $3,677,864 over 3y, 62% of budgetMID-PENINSULA HALF MOON BAY INC: $3,325,752 over 2y, 58% of budgetMID-PENINSULA PICKERING INC: $1,951,830 over 2y, 48% of budgetNON-PROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: $70,500 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetHOUSING LEADERSHIP COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO COUNTY: $50,700 over 6y, 1.6% of budgetCOMMUNITY ECONOMICS INC: $37,750 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetHOUSING CALIFORNIA INC: $33,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetMID-PENINSULA THE FARM INC: $25,739 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetCALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM: $25,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetMID-PENINSULA SCOTTS VALLEY INC: $23,509 over 1y, 26% of budgetNEW WAY HOMES INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetSV HOME: $20,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetMID PENINSULA SEVEN TREES INC: $12,270 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetMONTEREY BAY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

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.

Eden Housing IncSunlight GivingThe David and Lucile …First Community Housi…Merritt Community Cap…Tipping Point Communi…Mufg Union Bank Found…Local Initiatives Sup…American Online Givin…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…
Eden Housing IncCA17.8× 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 Corporation · Tipping Point Community · Mufg Union Bank Foundation Ag · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%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
    2report 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, FY20–24
    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 Midpen Housing Corporation?

    Find your warmest path to Midpen Housing Corporation 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 24 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 Midpen Housing’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