· Public charity
Aspen Skiing Company Environment Foundation
The ASPEN SKIING COMPANY ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATION is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the enhancement and protection of the environmental quality of the roaring fork valley region.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 54% of ASPEN SKIING COMPANY ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 19 grants below total $220,156 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $234,682 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $14,526 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k4 grants · $30k
- $10k–50k15 grants · $190k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE FARM COLLABORATIVE | $21,360 |
| 350 COLORADO | $20,000 |
| WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER | $20,000 |
| PROTECT OUR WINTERS | $15,000 |
| RED HILL COUNCIL | $13,890 |
| COMMUNITY OFFICE FOR RESOURCE EFFECIENCY | $10,000 |
| BASALT EDUCATION FUNDATION | $10,000 |
| ROARING FORK OUTDOOR VOLUNTEERS | $10,000 |
| ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT | $10,000 |
| CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND | $10,000 |
| ROARING FORK HIGH SCHOOL | $10,000 |
| THE ALLIANCE CENTER | $10,000 |
| SAFE PASSAGES ROARING FORK | $10,000 |
| WILDERNESS WORKSHOP | $10,000 |
| BIG PIVOTS | $10,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 39% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 8% of Aspen Skiing Company Environment Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 83% of the giving stays in CO; read by stated purpose it is 74% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +90% since the first grant, against +42% for the ones you funded once.
35 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2023, 22 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (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 FY2023, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $61k 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
- ACASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES7× · 2017–2023 · $101k · revenue +120%
- WWWILDERNESS WORKSHOP7× · 2018–2024 · $100k · revenue +167%
- POPROTECT OUR WINTERS7× · 2017–2024 · $71k · revenue +661%
Funded once
- SESOLAR ENERGY INTERNATIONALone grant, 2020 · $20k
- IPINDEPENDENCE PASS FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $12k
- TFTRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDone grant, 2019 · $10k
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.
Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…
To unite, elevate and empower colorado's conservation community to protect the lands and waters that define our state.
The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…
To broaden the nature of a liberal arts education; teach critical thinking about social & environmental issues; foster understanding of & respect for natural & human communities; & cultivate a sense of place that encourages personal,…
Rocky Mountain Field Institute conserves and protects public lands in Southern Colorado through volunteer-based trail and restoration projects, environmental education, and restoration research.
Colorado open lands' mission is to preserve the significant open lands and natural heritage of colorado through private and public partnerships, innovative land conservation, and strategic leadership.
Our work secures policies and elevates leaders that advance climate action and environmental justice. we help them do it, and hold them to it. we work for a colorado where every community can breathe clean air, drink clean water, protect…
The San Juan Citizens Alliance advocates for clean air, pure water, and healthy lands - the foundations of resilient communities, ecosystems and economies in the San Juan Basin.
Works with farmers and ranchers to address water issues around the state impacting agriculture.
Living rivers promotes river restoration through mobilization by articulating conservation and alternative management strategies to the public. seeking to revive the natural habitat and spirit of rivers by undoing the extensive damage done…
The Center brings together mission-focused, nonpolitical organizations working at the confluence of land and water science, education, and stewardship to magnify our impact and ensure the longevity of our natural resources for future…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Colorado Education Fund and the most unlike its peers is Fat City Farmers. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 29 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 5% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
37 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. 37 of the 76 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
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 ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ↗
- Who funds WILDERNESS WORKSHOP ↗
- Who funds PROTECT OUR WINTERS ↗
- Who funds Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers ↗
- Who funds COLORADO FOURTEENERS INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds 350 COLORADO ↗
- Who funds The Farm Collaborative ↗
- Who funds HIGH COUNTRY NEWS ↗
- Who funds ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds COLORADO OUTWARD BOUND SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN YOUTH CORPS ↗
- Who funds THE ARTS CAMPUS AT WILLITS ↗
- Who funds COLORADO ROCKY MOUNTAIN SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds THE BUDDY PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds WESTERN COLORADO ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds NFRIA-WSERC CONSERVATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY OFFICE FOR RESOURCE EFFICIENCY ↗
- Who funds Fat City Farmers ↗
- Who funds ENERGETICS EDUCATION dba Solar Rollers ↗
- Who funds ECOFLIGHT ↗
- Who funds The Alliance For Collective Action ↗
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: Aspen Community Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Western Colorado Community Foundation Inc · Patagoniaorg · Aspen Business Center Foundation · Brady Foundation · Alpenglow Foundation · Gates Family Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Our Part co Marsha Soffer · Arches 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 Aspen Skiing Company Environment Foundation 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.