· Public charity
Colorado Golf Foundation
To provide funding for colorado-based golf organizations and programs that use golf to build important life skills and character, with an emphasis on instilling hard work and self-reliance in young people.
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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COLORADO GOLF ASSOCIATION | $742,717 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 99% of your 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 18% of Colorado Golf Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in CO; read by stated purpose it is 97% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +45% since the first grant, against +43% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- CGCOLORADO GOLF ASSOCIATION9× · 2017–2025 · $2.8M · revenue +110%
- LSLIFE SKILLS FORE THE YOUTH OF COLORADO SPRINGS5× · 2017–2021 · $85k · revenue +51%
- COCOLORADO OPEN GOLF FOUNDATION INC6× · 2017–2022 · $47k · revenue +10%
Funded once
- BCBroadmoor Caddie and Leadership Academyone grant, 2021 · $328k
- AJAmerican Junior Golf Association Incgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $13k · revenue +43%
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.
None
The cga is a non-profit service organization that was formed in 1909 to conduct championships and tournaments for amateur golfers in north and south carolina, administer the usga handicap system in the carolinas, and support its membership…
To promote, preserve, and serve the game of junior golf
To preserve, promote, and serve the game of golf
LPGA-USGA Girls Golf is a developmental junior golf program Opportunity for girls and youth to make lasting friendship, gain self confidence learn to compete and HAVE FUN. Fundraising for all Youth Sports
The primary moving force behind the promotion and betterment of golf in central ohio
Promote the enjoyment and involvement in the game of golf within the carolinas and to contribute to its growth by providing services to golf professionals and the golf industry within the carolinas.
Promote golf for hawaii juniors, including enhancing the enjoyment of it, and preserving the tradition and integrity of the game.
Our mission is to provide the championship with its playability and unique hole designs in the dfw area. we also offer the players golf courses to support and promote amateur golfers with more opportunities to compete at national and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Colorado Open Golf Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Denver Junior Golf. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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. 8 of the 11 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 GOLF ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds LIFE SKILLS FORE THE YOUTH OF COLORADO SPRINGS ↗
- Who funds JUNIOR GOLF ALLIANCE OF COLORADO ↗
- Who funds GOLF HISTORY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COLORADO OPEN GOLF FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds COLORADO SECTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds DENVER JUNIOR GOLF ↗
- Who funds American Junior Golf Association 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: Colorado Golf Association · El Pomar Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Amazonsmile 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 Colorado Golf 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.