Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver Inc

To provide club members with a safe, supportive, fun, and enriching environment that inspires and empowers them to achieve their greatest potential.

$190k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$85k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20232025.

Youth Development$767k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 2 grants below total $159,633 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $190,494 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $30,861 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.

$84,961
Median grant
1
States reached
$86M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BGC OF PUEBLO COUNTY$84,961
BGC OF LARIMER COUNTY$74,672
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY23–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 72% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%BGC OF THE HIGH ROCKIES: $35k → 8%PETERSON AFB YOUTH & SCHOOL PROGRAM: $22k → 9%BGC OF CHAFFEE COUNTY: $26k → 10%BUCKLEY AFB YOUTH PROGRAMS: $29k → 10%BGC OF LARIMER COUNTY: $75k → 11%BGC OF LA PLATA COUNTY: $26k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS IN COLORADO INC: $57k → 12%BGC OF PUEBLO COUNTY: $85k → 15%BGC OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY: $46k → 17%IMWRF CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES: $51k → 9%BGC OF LARIMER COUNTY: $35k → 11%BGC OF THE SOUTH UTE INDIAN TRIBE: $27k → 12%BGC OF PUEBLO COUNTY: $45k → 15%ACAD AF FALCON TRAILS YOUTH SRV CTR: $26k → 9%BGC OF THE PIKES PEAK REGION: $44k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your field

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.

1
Boys Girls Club
2
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
3
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
4
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
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
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.

7
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
8
Boys and Girls Clubs of King County

Youth health and social, educational, and character development of youth.

Recreation & Sports
9
Boys & Girls Club of Bloomfield

The corporation provides youth with after school activities to promote education, sports and recreation.

10
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
11
Boys and Girls Club of Glacier Country

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

Youth Development
12
Boys & Girls Clubs of the North Valley

To inspire and enable all young people to reach their full potential as caring, productive, and responsible citizens.

Youth Development

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of Northwest Colo and 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 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 17 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
8/12
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY — $109,224 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTYBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS IN COLORADO INC — $57,460 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS IN COLORADO INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY INC — $46,376 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE PIKES PEAK REGION — $44,329 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE PIKES PEAK REGIONBLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC — $39,488 · Youth DevelopmentBLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NORTHWEST COLO — $36,612 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NORTHWEST COLOBoys and Girls Club of South Park — $35,436 · Youth DevelopmentBoys and Girls Club of South ParkBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY — $26,470 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTYBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LA PLATA COUNTY INC — $26,252 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LA PLATA COUNTY INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREMONT COUNTY INC — $24,832 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREMONT COUNTY INCBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County — $129,951 · OtherBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo CountyIMWRF CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES — $51,391 · OtherIMWRF CHILD & YOUTH SERVICESTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY INC — $35,015 · OtherTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY INCBUCKLEY AFB YOUTH PROGRAMS — $28,997 · OtherBUCKLEY AFB YOUTH PROGRAMSBGC OF THE SOUTH UTE INDIAN TRIBE — $26,803 · OtherBGC OF THE SOUTH UTE INDIAN TRIBEACAD AF FALCON TRAILS YOUTH SRV CTR — $26,070 · OtherACAD AF FALCON TRAILS YOUTH SRV CTRPETERSON AFB YOUTH & SCHOOL PROGRAM — $22,199 · OtherPETERSON AFB YOUTH & SCHOOL PROGRAM
Youth Development$446,479Other$320,426

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County — $129,951 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER COUNTY — $109,224 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS IN COLORADO INC — $57,460 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY INC — $46,376 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE PIKES PEAK REGION — $44,329 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetBLACK CANYON BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC — $39,488 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NORTHWEST COLO — $36,612 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of South Park — $35,436 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY INC — $35,015 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY — $26,470 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LA PLATA COUNTY INC — $26,252 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREMONT COUNTY INC — $24,832 over 1y, 2.1% of budget
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.

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.

Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return)GA30.1× affinity12 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 in Colorado Inc · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · El Pomar Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Adolph Coors Foundation · Anschutz Family Foundation · Caring for Colorado Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · The Edmund T & Eleanor Quick Foundation · Johnson Foundation of the Rockies · Duncan John G Tuw

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 Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver 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.

2024
2021222324
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY2024

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 17 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph