· Public charity
Cancer League of Colorado Inc
A joint commitment to raise money for research and patient care with the mission of finding a cure for, or the means to control, cancer.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 25 grants below total $1,293,494 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,418,744 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $125,250 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k7 grants · $54k
- $10k–50k16 grants · $220k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
- $250k+1 grant · $960k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| University of Colorado Denver | $959,995 |
| National Jewish Center Inst | $60,000 |
| The Regents of the Univ of CO | $30,000 |
| Univ of CO - Boulder | $30,000 |
| CO State University | $29,999 |
| Marlene F Landy Cancer Founda | $10,000 |
| Hope Held by a Horse | $10,000 |
| Suddenly Pink Foundation | $10,000 |
| Gabby Krause Foundation | $10,000 |
| Living Journeys | $10,000 |
| WAPIYAPI | $10,000 |
| Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation | $10,000 |
| CO Gynecologic Cancer Allianc | $10,000 |
| CO Melanoma Foundation | $10,000 |
| Southeast CO Home Health | $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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $135k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 77% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
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 +32% since the first grant, against -6% for the ones you funded once.
31 repeat relationships — 21 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 2 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $68k 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
- HBHEALING BUDDIES INC9× · 2017–2025 · $95k · revenue +26%
- SSSHINING STARS FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2025 · $78k · revenue +95%
- MEMOUNT EVANS HOSPICE INC DBA MOUNT EVANS HOME HEALTH CARE AND HOS8× · 2018–2025 · $73k · revenue +23%
Funded once
- TCThe Childrens Treehouse Foundationone grant, 2017 · $12k · revenue -12%
- SDSue DiNapoli Ovarian Cancer Societyone grant, 2024 · $8k · revenue +15%
- VFVERMA FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · $7k · revenue -6%
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.
Cancer survivors to go on a healing retreat
Cancer survivor support
Helping women with cancer
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Sue DiNapoli Ovarian Cancer Society. 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 24 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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.
33 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. 33 of the 38 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 HEALING BUDDIES INC ↗
- Who funds WAPIYAPI ↗
- Who funds SHINING STARS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MOUNT EVANS HOSPICE INC DBA MOUNT EVANS HOME HEALTH CARE AND HOS ↗
- Who funds MARLENE F LANDY CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds EPIC EXPERIENCE ↗
- Who funds HOPE HELD BY A HORSE ↗
- Who funds NIGHTHAWK RANCH INC ↗
- Who funds PROJECT ANGEL HEART ↗
- Who funds RAY OF HOPE CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH ↗
- Who funds SENSE OF SECURITY INC ↗
- Who funds Colorado Gynecologic Cancer Alliance ↗
- Who funds Blueprints of Hope aka Cancer Support Community Southwest Color ↗
- Who funds LIVE BY LIVING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LIVING JOURNEYS ↗
- Who funds LA CLINICA TEPEYAC ↗
- Who funds COLORADO MELANOMA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BRAVEHOODS ↗
- Who funds SUDDENLY PINK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE GABBY KRAUSE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BRENT ELEY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN CANCER CENTERS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds REEL RECOVERY INC ↗
- Who funds HopeWest ↗
- Who funds CASTING FOR RECOVERY ↗
- Who funds PROSPECT HOME CARE-HOSPICE INC ↗
- Who funds MYLIFELINE INC ↗
- Who funds The Childrens Treehouse Foundation ↗
- Who funds Sue DiNapoli Ovarian Cancer Society ↗
- Who funds SKY HIGH HOPE CAMP ↗
- Who funds VERMA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Rocky Mountain Adventist Healthcare Foundation ↗
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: Colorado Gives Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · The Janus Henderson Foundation · El Pomar Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · Kroenke Sports Charities Inc · Schlessman Foundation Inc · Libertygives Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · The Denver Foundation · Xcel Energy 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 Cancer League of Colorado 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.
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.