Skip to content

· Private foundation

Circle of Dreams Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$73k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it funds
0183% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Science & Tech$75kArts & Culture$60kEnvironment$54kEducation$24kFood & Nutrition$11kAnimals$9kHousing & Shelter$6kCommunity Improvement$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $58k
$7,580
Median grant
6
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$15,000
GREAT OLE BROADS FOR WILDERNESS$15,000
ARTISTS FOR SOUP$14,000
Individual grant recipient$13,500
YOUTH GARDEN PROJECT$7,580
PARTNERS OF DELTA MONTROSE$5,000
LEUKEMIA LYMPHOMA SOCIETY LLS$1,050
RIDGWAY PICKELBALL CLUB$1,000
Individual grant recipient$525
OURAY COUNTY CARES$195
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $45k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%GREAT OLE BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $15k → 12%GREAT OLE BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $10k → 12%GREAT OLE BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $10k → 12%GREAT OLE BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $10k → 12%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
MA
CA
UT
CO
VA
NM
DC
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$279k · 11 repeat orgs$22k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
10

Total granted

$279k
$15k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
-8%

Still filing today

64%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’22’23’24’25
Arts & CultureHuman ServicesEducationAnimalsFood & NutritionEmploymentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • AF
    ARTISTS FOR SOUP INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $47k · revenue +223%
  • YG
    YOUTH GARDEN PROJECT
    2× · 2023–2025 · $11k · revenue +8%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF YOUTH AND NATURE
    2× · 2023–2024 · $9k · revenue +68%

Funded once

  • MR
    MOUNTAIN ROOTS
    one grant, 2022 · $12k
  • L
    LLS
    one grant, 2022 · $1k
  • TG
    THE GROUNDTRUTH PROJECT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $1k · revenue +77%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
Slow Food Wind River

To build an abundant, resilient, and valued local food system that supports our landscape, our farmers, ranchers, and food artisans, and our community.

Food & Nutrition
2
Friends of the Owyhee

Friends of the owyhee exists to promote conservation advocacy, stewardship, and recreation in the owyhee region.

Environment
3
Gunnison Trails Inc

Gunnison Trails is a non-profit trail advocacy organization established to assist land managers and other organizations in maintaining existing trails, educating users on responsible trail-based recreation, and pursuing opportunities for…

Environment
4
Mutual Aid Partners

Mutual aid partners is a network that supports and connects grassroots efforts in mesa county colorado, by facilitating communication, education, boosting collaboration and accessibility to resources & volunteers.

Community Improvement
5
Mountain Roots Food Project

To cultivate a resilient food system in the gunnison valley by enhancing healthy connections between food, earth, and community by fostering knowledge, teaching skills, and providing opportunities that ensure access to affordable,…

Food & Nutrition
6
Rocky Mountain Wild

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…

Environment
7
Northern Colorado Foodshed Project

To grow colorado's food system to be more productive, accessible and secure.

Food & Nutrition
8
Yampatika

Yampatika's mission is to inspire environmental stewardship through education. They fulfil that mission by developing environmental learning opportunities that serve the children and adults of Northwest Colorado.

Environment
9
Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation Inc

The mission of the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation is to provide a legacy for Colorado through support of environmental stewardship conservation of wildlife and the protection of critical habitat.

Animals
10
Highwater Farm

We use sustainable agriculture to transform the lives of young people and increase access to healthy food in Garfield County.

Youth Development
11
Outdoor Equity Alliance

To create equitable access to nature in all communities and inspire a diverse new generation of environmental leaders.

Food & Nutrition
12
First Light Foundation

First Light Foundation makes films about environmental issues that rely on public support since they lack sufficient commercial value to interest commercial film producers.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mountainfilm; the most unlike its peers is Empowerment International. 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

10 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. 10 of the 25 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $75,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $50,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMOUNTAIN ROOTS: $12,000 · OtherMOUNTAIN ROOTSHome Trust of Ouray County: $6,150 · Other+15 more: $12,950 · Other+15 moreARTISTS FOR SOUP INC: $47,000 · Food & NutritionARTISTS FOR SOUP …GREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $45,103 · Human ServicesGREAT OLD BROADS…EMPOWERMENT INTERNATIONAL: $23,920 · EducationEMPOWERME…YOUTH GARDEN PROJECT: $11,155 · Crime & LegalFRIENDS OF YOUTH AND NATURE: $8,500 · Youth DevelopmentSECOND CHANCE HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $8,500 · Animals
Other$156,600Food & Nutrition$47,000Human Services$45,103Education$23,920Crime & Legal$11,155Youth Development$8,500Animals$8,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetARTISTS FOR SOUP INC: $47,000 over 4y, 10% of budgetGREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $45,103 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetEMPOWERMENT INTERNATIONAL: $23,920 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetYOUTH GARDEN PROJECT: $11,155 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF YOUTH AND NATURE: $8,500 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetSECOND CHANCE HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $8,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetHome Trust of Ouray County: $6,150 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTHE GROUNDTRUTH PROJECT INC: $1,023 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMOUNTAINFILM: $150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE WRIGHT OPERA HOUSE INC: $40 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds ARTISTS FOR SOUP INC ↗
  • Who funds GREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS ↗
  • Who funds EMPOWERMENT INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds YOUTH GARDEN PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF YOUTH AND NATURE ↗
  • Who funds SECOND CHANCE HUMANE SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds Home Trust of Ouray County ↗
  • Who funds THE GROUNDTRUTH PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds MOUNTAINFILM ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WRIGHT OPERA HOUSE INC ↗

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.

Telluride FoundationCO13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Telluride Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Circle of Dreams Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Circle of Dreams Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    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 25 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-PF 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 Circle of Dreams’ filings →

    More from the funding graph