· Public charity
Arc Thrift Stores Inc
As one of the nations largest employers of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, we believe in the power of employment to foster independence and fulfillment.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $50k–250k1 grant · $64k
- $250k+16 grants · $17M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE ARC PIKES PEAK REGION | $2,049,468 |
| ADVOCACY DENVER | $1,897,110 |
| ARC OF ARAPAHOE AND DOUGLAS INC | $1,746,344 |
| THE ARC IN JEFFERSON COUNTY | $1,578,407 |
| THE ARC OF ADAMS COUNTY INC | $1,337,504 |
| THE ARC OF AURORA INC | $1,159,750 |
| ACL IN BOULDER COUNTY | $1,159,479 |
| THE ARC OF LARIMER COUNTY INC | $1,059,526 |
| THE ARC OF WELD COUNTY | $988,371 |
| THE ARC OF COLORADO | $791,416 |
| THE ARC OF PUEBLO INC | $745,826 |
| THE ARC MESA COUNTY | $608,495 |
| CEREBRAL PALSY OF COLORADO INC | $411,716 |
| ARC OF WEST CENTRAL COLORADO | $355,323 |
| ARC OF SOUTHWEST COLORADO INC | $334,210 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $27.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein 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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +68% since the first grant, against +24% for the ones you funded once.
16 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $64k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- TATHE ARC PIKES PEAK REGION9× · 2017–2025 · $14M · revenue +47% · 83% of their budget
- AOARC OF DENVER INC9× · 2017–2025 · $13M · revenue +81% · 96% of their budget
- TATHE ARC ARAPAHOE DOUGLAS & ELBERT COUNTIES INC9× · 2017–2025 · $12M · revenue +69% · 98% of their budget
Funded once
- TATHE ARC OF NEW MEXICOone grant, 2025 · $64k · revenue +24%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
We exist as an advocacy organization to make it possible for each person with a developmental disability to participate fully in all aspects of community and to support the effort of each individual to determine their own future.
To assist people of all ages with intellecutal and developmental disabilities to obtain the rights and resources they require to become, to the fullest-extent possible, independent, self-sufficient, participating and contributing members…
The ARC of Crawford County, Inc. advocates for the rights of citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities and enhances their lives by promoting maximum independence and affording them opportunities for enrichment.
Empowering people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (i/dd) and their families to lead full, satisfying, independent lives of their choice.
Advocates for the rights and participation of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. together with our network of members and affiliated chapters, we improve systems of support, connect families, inspire communication,…
The arc of louisiana advocates for and with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.
We empower central texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families through compassionate case management and innovative programs.
To advocate and provide services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities and to provide support to family and friends of those individuals.
The Arc of Illinois is committed to empowering persons with disabilities to achieve full participation in community life through informed choices.
To advocate for the right of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families to be regarded as valued citizens with the same entitlements as non-disabled individuals, including the right to lifelong opportunities for…
To enhance the lives of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Promote and protect the human rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and actively support their full inclusion and participation in the community throughout their lifetimes.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Arc of Colorado and the most unlike its peers is Ability Connection Colorado Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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 THE ARC PIKES PEAK REGION ↗
- Who funds ARC OF DENVER INC ↗
- Who funds THE ARC ARAPAHOE DOUGLAS & ELBERT COUNTIES INC ↗
- Who funds THE ARC - JEFFERSON CLEAR CREEK & GILPIN COUNTIES ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF ADAMS COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF AURORA ↗
- Who funds ARC OF LARIMER COUNTY ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF NORTHEAST COLORADO ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF COLORADO ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF PUEBLO INC ↗
- Who funds ADVOCACY RESOURCE COALITION PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ↗
- Who funds ABILITY CONNECTION COLORADO INC ↗
- Who funds ARC of West Central Colorado ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF SOUTHWEST COLORADO INC ↗
- Who funds ARC OF THE CENTRAL MOUNTAINS ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF NEW MEXICO ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Colorado Gives Foundation · The Arc of the United States · The Denver Foundation · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 organization Arc Thrift Stores Inc 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.
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 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.