Skip to content
Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

Youth Development$767k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $159,633, the rows itemized in this filing. The $190,494 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $30,861 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized 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

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 (FY23–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 72% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its 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
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 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 & 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
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 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
6
Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley

To provide opportunities for youth to learn and succeed.

Youth Development
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 & 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
9
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
10
Boys & Girls Club of Bloomfield

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

—
11
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
12
Boys & Girls Club of San Marcos

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

—
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 17 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
8/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County: $129,951 over 2y, 1.6% 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
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.

Boys & Girls Clubs of…Boys & Girls Clubs in…Boys & Girls Clubs of…El Pomar FoundationColorado Gives Founda…Adolph Coors Foundati…Anschutz Family Found…Caring for Colorado F…Mile High United Way …The Edmund T & Eleano…Johnson Foundation of…Duncan John G Tuw
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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's 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, FY20–24
    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 17 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver’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