Skip to content
Actc Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Actc Foundation Inc

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$211k
Granted FY2023
11
Grants FY2023
3
States reached
$50k
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 2023.

Education$603kCrime & Legal$580kHuman Services$449kHealth$270kPhilanthropy$25kRecreation & Sports$25kYouth Development$20kAnimals$20kOther$0
02FY2023 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k4 grants · $21k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $90k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$9.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SUNY OSWEGO$50,000
CATHOLIC CHARITIES$50,000
EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF COLORADO$25,000
TUTTI BAMBINI FOUNDATION$25,000
THE VALLEY OF HOPE$20,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
EAST SYRACUSE MARCHING BAND BOOSTERS$10,000
UPSTATE FOUNDATION$8,000
SISTERS OF ST JOSEPH CARONDELET$5,000
ELMCREST CHILDRENS CENTER$5,000
CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FOUNDATION$2,500
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 (FY18–23, $164k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 85% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%CLEAR PATH FOR VETERANS: $5k → 11%ELMCREST CHILDRENS CENTER: $25k → 14%FAMILY TREE INC: $20k → 7%ELMCREST CHILDRENS CENTER: $20k → 14%DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES RESOURCES CENTER: $5k → 7%ELMCREST CHILDRENS CENTER: $7k → 14%LABORATORY TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICK: $30k → 12%ELMCREST CHILDRENS CENTER: $5k → 14%LABORATORY TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING: $25k → 12%ELMCREST CHILDRENS CENTER: $3k → 14%LABORATORY TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING: $10k → 12%UPSTATE FOUNDATION: $8k → 14%REMERG: $1k → 12%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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 11 repeat orgs$665k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2023, 5 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
19

Total granted

$1.4M
$587k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+39%

Still filing today

55%
58%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
Human ServicesEducationAnimalsHealthYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • EF
    EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF COLORADO
    5× · 2019–2023 · $199k · revenue +31%
  • LT
    LABORATORY TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING
    3× · 2018–2020 · $65k · revenue +45%
  • EC
    ELMCREST CHILDREN'S CENTER INC
    5× · 2018–2023 · $60k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • OU
    OSWEGO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $150k · revenue +88%
  • AC
    ARAPAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue -55%
  • OC
    ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue -22%
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
Center for Policy Research

To conduct, support, assist and contribute to education, training and research in public policy issues.

Public Benefit
2
Childsafe Colorado Inc

Mission: our mission is to break the cycle and heal the childhood trauma resulting from abuse and neglect with specialized treatment, education and community outreach. we believe in a comprehensive, community-based approach to the problem…

Crime & Legal
3
Center for Improving Value in Health Care

To equip partners and communities in colorado and across the nation with the resources, services and unbiased data needed to improve health and health care. we help communities, organizations and individuals identify opportunities to…

Health
4
Denver Scholarship Foundation

Denver scholarship foundation (dsf) inspires and empowers denver public schools (dps) students to enroll in and graduate from postsecondary institutions of higher education by providing the tools, knowledge, and financial resources for…

Education
5
Colorado Mountain College Foundation Inc

The colorado mountain college foundation builds sustainable community support for the needs and strategic priorities of colorado mountain college and its students.

—
6
Lutheran Social Services of Colorado

Rooted in the values of kindness, dignity and social justice, lfsrm strenghtens communities by providing support, guidance, and resource coordination to individuals and families throughout the rocky mountain region.

—
7
Colorado Dream Foundation

We partner with youth and their families as they successfully navigate school, college, and career by providing a holistic academic, social, and emotional program from elementary school through college, along with post-secondary…

—
8
Central Piedmont Community College Foundation Inc

The foundation's mission is to generate private financial support to further the mission of central piedmont community college.

Education
9
College for Social Innovation Inc

To educate and inspire the next generation of problem solvers.

Employment
10
Cornerstones of Care

Partnering for safe and healthy communities.

Human Services
11
Mount St Vincent Home Inc

As part of intermountain health, mount saint vincent partners with children and families to heal beyond trauma into a healthy and hopeful future.

—
12
Colorado Access Foundation
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Epilepsy Foundation of Colorado; the most unlike its peers is Arapahoe County Foundation 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

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 35 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
14/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SUNY OSWEGO: $650,000 · OtherSUNY OSWEGOEPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF COLORADO: $199,163 · OtherEPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF COLORADOTUTTI BAMBINI FOUNDATION: $165,000 · OtherTUTTI BAMBINI FOUNDATIONARAPAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · OtherARAPAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INCVICTIM ASSISTANCE UNIT OF THE DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: $55,000 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIES: $50,000 · Other+15 more: $223,500 · Other+15 moreOSWEGO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $150,000 · EducationOSWEGO UNIVERSITY F…ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · EducationONONDAGA COMMUNITY …THE COLLEGE OF SAINT ROSE: $100,000 · EducationTHE COLLEGE OF SAIN…LABORATORY TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING: $65,000 · Human ServicesLABORATOR…ELMCREST CHILDREN'S CENTER INC: $59,500 · Human ServicesELMCREST …FAMILY TREE INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesFAMILY TR…THE UPSTATE FOUNDATION INC: $8,000 · Human Services+3 more: $11,000 · Human Services+3 moreACCESSCNY INC: $45,000 · HealthTHE GREAT ESCAPE INC: $15,000 · AnimalsHUMANE SOCIETY OF THE SOUTH PLATTE VALLEY INC: $5,000 · AnimalsCOLORADO YOUTH FOR A CHANGE: $5,000 · Youth Development
Other$1,442,663Education$350,000Human Services$163,500Health$45,000Animals$20,000Youth Development$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF COLORADO: $199,163 over 5y, 6.0% of budgetOSWEGO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $150,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetARAPAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetTHE COLLEGE OF SAINT ROSE: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLABORATORY TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING: $65,000 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetELMCREST CHILDREN'S CENTER INC: $59,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetACCESSCNY INC: $45,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFAMILY TREE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE GREAT ESCAPE INC: $15,000 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetTHE UPSTATE FOUNDATION INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCLEAR PATH FOR VETERANS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOLORADO YOUTH FOR A CHANGE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF THE SOUTH PLATTE VALLEY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetDEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES RESOURCE CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Colorado Gives Founda…The Denver FoundationCentral New York Comm…Enterprise Holdings F…Verizon FoundationThe Bank of America C…Ge Aerospace Foundati…The Pfizer Foundation…The Blackbaud Giving …American Endowment Fo…American Online Givin…Vanguard Charitable E…
Colorado Gives FoundationCO21.6× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Central New York Community Foundation Inc · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Verizon Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · American Endowment Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 Actc Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Actc Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 Actc Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Actc Foundation 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 35 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Actc’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