· Private foundation
Buck Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k4 grants · $9k
- $10k–50k32 grants · $658k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE | $35,000 |
| 350 COLORADO | $30,760 |
| COLORADO NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION - AGRIVOLTAIC LEARNING CENTER | $30,000 |
| COLORADO NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION - NONPROFIT LEGAL RESOURES | $30,000 |
| SO ALL MAY EAT DENVER | $25,736 |
| Individual grant recipient | $25,000 |
| HOUSEKEYS ACTION NETWORK DENVER | $25,000 |
| CULTIVANDO | $25,000 |
| 9TO5 COLORADO | $25,000 |
| STREET FRATERNITY | $25,000 |
| BUILDSTRONG ACADEMY | $25,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $25,000 |
| DENVER FOOD RESCUE | $22,880 |
| GRID ALTERNATIVES COLORADO | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–25, $403k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 46% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +75% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
49 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2025, 27 since wound down; 13 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, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $242k 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
- VEVILLAGE EXCHANGE CENTER INC6× · 2019–2025 · $215k · revenue +536%
- LPLA PUENTE HOME INC7× · 2019–2025 · $153k · revenue +374%
- BEBAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC6× · 2019–2024 · $133k · revenue +50%
Funded once
- DHDENVER HOMELESS OUT LOUDone grant, 2020 · $50k
- WRWestern Regional Advocacy Projectgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $30k · revenue +153%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $20k
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.
Advance workers rights & social justice through building sustained relationships and taking direct action to create concrete change in the lives of working families
Colorado center on law and policy is an antipoverty organization advancing the rights of every coloradan.
AIA Colorado,is the voice of the architecture profession in Colorado. Through advocacy, leadership development, education and resources for architects, the organization supports architecture professionals in designing a better world where…
Colorado organization for latina opportunity and reproductive rights (color) is a community-rooted nonprofit organization that works to enable latinx individuals and their families lead safe, healthy, self-determined lives.
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…
Empowering Latino communities through leadership development, advocacy, and policy research to strengthen Colorado
Provide opportunities for all to thrive by offering free food resources to communities.
To develop leaders that will become a strong, unified voice for agricultural issues.
Colorado people's action (cpa) is a member-driven, racial justice organization dedicated to winning long-lasting progressive public policies in colorado. cpa builds power by mobilizing voters, electing our own people to office, holding…
Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.
Colorado nonprofit association strengthens colorado's nonprofits through education, connection and advocacy.
To provide and promote alternatives to individual car ownership, thereby reducing the environmental and social impacts associated with motor vehicle use.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is Buildstrong Academy. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 19 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
56 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. 56 of the 117 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 VILLAGE EXCHANGE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds LA PUENTE HOME INC ↗
- Who funds BAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC ↗
- Who funds 9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds Street Fraternity Inc ↗
- Who funds GRID ALTERNATIVES COLORADO INC ↗
- Who funds The Alliance For Collective Action ↗
- Who funds 350 COLORADO ↗
- Who funds DENVER FOOD RESCUE ↗
- Who funds HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds COLORADO VILLAGE COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds SO ALL MAY EAT INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL TROPICAL BOTANICAL GARDEN ↗
- Who funds HANA ARTS INC ↗
- Who funds THE DELORES PROJECT ↗
- Who funds MA KA HANA KA IKE BUILDING PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds BlueGreen Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds CULTIVANDO ↗
- Who funds Rural Communities Resource Center ↗
- Who funds Project VOYCE ↗
- Who funds Western Regional Advocacy Project ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP CENTER ↗
- Who funds QUIVIRA COALITION INC ↗
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: The Colorado Health Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Colorado Trust · Gates Family Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · Caring for Colorado Foundation · Trailhead Institute · Community Foundation Boulder County · Anschutz Family Foundation · The Women's Foundation of Colorado Inc
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 Buck 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Buck Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Buck Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.