Skip to content

· Public charity

Boys & Girls Clubs in Colorado Inc

None

$2.6M
Granted FY2024still arriving
17
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$545k
Largest
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.

Youth Development$12M
02FY2024 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $163k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $1.4M
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.1M
$131,080
Median grant
1
States reached
$929k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUEBLO COUNTY$544,716
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER$285,995
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY$258,042
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF NORTHWEST COLORADO$243,423
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF HIGH ROCKIES$219,893
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LA PLATA COUNTY$182,077
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BLACK CANYON$160,621
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY$144,370
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN LUIS VALLEY$131,080
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY$109,926
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE PIKES PEAK REGION$104,147
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF FREMONT COUNTY$74,981
PETERSON AFB YOUTH PROGRAM$45,951
BUCKLEY AIR FORCE YOUTH CENTER$40,024
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS SOUTHERN UTE$35,961
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 88% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF HIGH ROCKIES: $220k → 8%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY: $312k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS NORTHWEST CO: $74k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY: $416k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LA PLATA COUNTY: $332k → 12%BLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $223k → 12%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF METRO DENVER: $765k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUEBLO COUNTY: $545k → 15%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF FREMONT COUNTY: $159k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN LUIS VALLEY: $265k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS Clubs OF the HIGH ROCKIES: $203k → 8%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY: $258k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS NORTHWEST CO: $68k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY: $144k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LA PLATA COUNTY: $182k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BLACK CANYON: $161k → 12%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF METRO DENVER: $317k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUEBLO COUNTY: $518k → 15%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF FREMONT COUNTY: $134k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN LUIS VALLEY: $146k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS Clubs OF the HIGH ROCKIES: $143k → 8%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY: $135k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY: $137k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LA PLATA COUNTY: $86k → 12%BLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $111k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS METRO DENVER: $292k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUEBLO COUNTY: $158k → 15%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF FREMONT COUNTY: $103k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN LUIS VALLEY: $131k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS HIGH ROCKIES: $79k → 8%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS CHAFFEE COUNTY: $92k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS LARIMER COUNTY: $80k → 11%BLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS: $70k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER: $286k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUEBLO COUNTY: $112k → 15%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF FREMONT COUNTY: $75k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN LUIS VALLEY: $110k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS HIGH ROCKIES: $69k → 8%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS CHAFFEE COUNTY: $72k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS LARIMER COUNTY: $65k → 11%BLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS: $61k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS METRO DENVER: $134k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS PUEBLO COUNTY: $97k → 15%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF METRO DENVER: $131k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS PUEBLO COUNTY: $65k → 15%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS METRO DENVER: $122k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS METRO DENVER: $115k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER: $90k → 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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$12M · 24 repeat orgs$127k to everyone else

24 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
4

Total granted

$12M
$102k

Still filing today

50%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $2.3M · revenue +47%
  • BG
    Boys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +145%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $955k · revenue +90%

Funded once

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHERN UTE
    one grant, 2019 · $46k
  • FC
    FORT CARSON CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES CEN
    one grant, 2020 · $22k
  • FC
    FORT CARSON CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES CENTRE
    one grant, 2021 · $20k
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
Boys Girls Club
—
2
Boys and Girls Club of Augusta/Waynesboro

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
3
Boys and Girls Clubs of West Central Missouri

The mission of the boys & girls clubs of west central missouri is to inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as caring and productive citizens.

Youth Development
4
The Boys & Girls Clubs Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those most in need of our services, to realize and develop their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens in a global society.

—
5
Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley

To provide opportunities for youth to learn and succeed.

Youth Development
6
Boys & Girls Clubs of Bandera County

Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.

Recreation & Sports
7
Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley

The club's mission is to enable all young people, specially those who need it most, to reach their potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

—
8
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Clinch Valley

Provide youth ages 5-17 with character development, leadership skills, education, career guidance, training for healthy habits, and life skills development to help them reach their full potential as caring, productive, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
9
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Northwoods Inc

To empower all youth, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
10
Boys and Girls Club of the Northern Cheyenne Nation

The boys & girls club's mission is to inspire and enable all youth of the northern cheyenne nation and surrounding areas to be productive citizens.

Youth Development
11
Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest Virginia Inc

To enable and inspire all young people, ages five to eighteen, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens.

Youth Development
12
Boys & Girls Clubs of the San Gorgonio Pass

To inspire and enable all young people especially those in need to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of Northwest Colo; the most unlike its peers is Boys and Girls Club of South Park. 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

12 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. 12 of the 29 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
11/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY: $955,180 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTYBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY: $922,675 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTYBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NORTHWEST COLO: $875,975 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NORTHWEST COLOBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LA PLATA COUNTY INC: $724,297 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LA PLATA COUNTY INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY INC: $697,205 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY INCBoys and Girls Club of South Park: $620,926 · Youth DevelopmentBoys and Girls Club of South ParkBLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC: $538,213 · Youth DevelopmentBLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREMONT COUNTY INC: $492,220 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREMONT COUNTY INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE PIKES PEAK REGION: $481,303 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE PIKES PEAK REGIONBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER INC: $2,312,549 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER INCBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County: $1,360,749 · OtherBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo CountyTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY INC: $880,170 · OtherTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY INC+17 more: $1,417,377 · Other+17 more
Youth Development$6,307,994Other$5,970,845

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 budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER INC: $2,312,549 over 8y, 3.1% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County: $1,360,749 over 5y, 11% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY: $955,180 over 8y, 4.6% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY: $922,675 over 8y, 12% of budgetTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY INC: $880,170 over 8y, 7.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NORTHWEST COLO: $875,975 over 5y, 19% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LA PLATA COUNTY INC: $724,297 over 7y, 21% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY INC: $697,205 over 5y, 8.9% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of South Park: $620,926 over 5y, 35% of budgetBLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC: $538,213 over 5y, 27% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREMONT COUNTY INC: $492,220 over 5y, 20% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE PIKES PEAK REGION: $481,303 over 5y, 12% 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.

  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER INC ↗
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NORTHWEST COLO ↗
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LA PLATA COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY INC ↗
  • Who funds Boys and Girls Club of South Park ↗
  • Who funds BLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREMONT COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE PIKES PEAK REGION ↗

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.

Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return)GA32.1× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver Inc · El Pomar Foundation · Adolph Coors Foundation · Anschutz Family Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · The Edmund T & Eleanor Quick Foundation · Caring for Colorado Foundation · Johnson Foundation of the Rockies · Duncan John G Tuw

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 Boys & Girls Clubs in Colorado Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Boys & Girls Clubs in Colorado Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%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
    8report 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.

    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 29 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Boys & Girls Clubs in Colorado’s filings →

    More from the funding graph