· Private foundation
Charles H Kurtz Family Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k31 grants · $69k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $41k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| South Routt Ag Program | $16,000 |
| Boys Girls Club of NW CO | $15,000 |
| American Rivers | $10,000 |
| Colorado Open Lands | $7,500 |
| Cattlemen's Land Trust | $5,350 |
| Gates Center for Regenerative Med | $5,000 |
| Forest Trends Association | $5,000 |
| Trout Unlimited | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Steamboat Art Museum | $2,500 |
| Island Academy Intl School | $2,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| Kelly Brush Foundation | $2,500 |
| Rocky Mtn Yourth Corp | $2,000 |
| Routt County Riders | $2,000 |
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 (FY21–21, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% 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.
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 +52% since the first grant, against -8% for the ones you funded once.
36 repeat relationships — 26 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11k 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
- COCOLORADO OPEN LANDS7× · 2018–2024 · $75k · revenue +302%
- TKTHE KELLY S BRUSH FOUNDATION INC6× · 2018–2024 · $23k · revenue +158%
AMERICAN RIVERS INC4× · 2020–2024 · $14k · revenue +221%
Funded once
- TWTHE WESTERN STOCK SHOW ASSOCIATIONgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue +437%
- UOUniversity of Denver Advancementone grant, 2022 · $5k
- CRCOLORADO RESTAURANT FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $3k · revenue -8%
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.
To restore water to colorado's rivers.
Living rivers promotes river restoration through mobilization by articulating conservation and alternative management strategies to the public. seeking to revive the natural habitat and spirit of rivers by undoing the extensive damage done…
To leverage education, technology, and innovative solutions to improve river health.
To conserve and steward the open lands and natural character of the headwaters of the colorado river in partnership with the local community.
Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…
Greater yellowstone coalition works with all people to protect the lands, waters, and wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem, now and for future generations.
Clrt works in partnership with landowners to conserve and protect land and water resources.
Water education colorado ensures coloradans are informed on water issues and equipped to make decisions that guide our state to a sustainable water future.
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…
Vision: a healthy and resilient big thompson watershed benefitting fish, wildlife, and the people itserves through collaborative efforts for current and future generations. mission: working with others to take action that protects and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Colorado and the most unlike its peers is The Colorado Health Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 24 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
23 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. 23 of the 62 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 COLORADO OPEN LANDS ↗
- Who funds FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE KELLY S BRUSH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds THE WESTERN STOCK SHOW ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Friends of the Lower Blue River ↗
- Who funds DENVER ART MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds STEAMBOAT ART MUSEUM ↗
- Who funds DENVER BOTANIC GARDENS INC ↗
- Who funds ROUTT COUNTY RIDERS ↗
- Who funds URBAN PEAK DENVER ↗
- Who funds The Cycle Effect ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE YAMPA INC ↗
- Who funds GIRLS ON THE RUN OF THE ROCKIES ↗
- Who funds COLORADO RESTAURANT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY ↗
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 · Craig-Scheckman Family Foundation · The Moniker Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · Amg Charitable Gift Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn 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 Charles H Kurtz Family 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.
- Western Rivers Conservancy — 0% of income from government
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.