· Public charity
Colorado Lawyer Trust Account Foundation
Funding of legal services, pro-bono, and legal education projects.
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $10k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $69k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $1.0M
- $250k+3 grants · $8.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Colorado Legal Services | $7,961,125 |
| Colorado Access to Justice Commission | $350,000 |
| Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network | $330,208 |
| Colorado Center on Law and Policy | $150,000 |
| Spero Justice Center | $140,000 |
| Justice and Mercy Legal Aid Center | $120,000 |
| Metro Volunteer Lawyers | $110,000 |
| Colorado Poverty Law Project | $110,000 |
| Pikes Peak Justice and Pro Bono Center | $100,000 |
| Alpine Legal Services | $90,000 |
| TESSA of Colorado Springs | $76,167 |
| Transformative Justice Project of Colorado | $55,000 |
| Uncompahgre Volunteer Legal Aid | $50,000 |
| Pro Bono Project of Mesa County | $30,000 |
| Weld County Legal Services | $21,000 |
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 (FY24–25, $262k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 42% 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.
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.
20 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
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
- CLCOLORADO LEGAL SERVICES9× · 2017–2025 · $34M · revenue +109% · 31% of their budget
- CCCOLORADO CENTER ON LAW AND POLICY9× · 2017–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +78%
- CACOLORADO ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION3× · 2023–2025 · $865k · revenue +491% · 51% of their budget
Funded once
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 provide legal assistance and increase opportunities for children and other disadvantaged communities through advocacy, negotiation and litigation. Volunteer attorneys dedicate time to improve the quality of life for these causes while…
To provide direct pro-bono legal services for eligible patients at salud family health centers throughout central and northern front range communities.
To advance the science of jurisprudence, secure the more efficient administration of justice, encourage the adoption of proper legislation, advocate thorough and continuing legal education, uphold the honor and integrity of the bar,…
The mission of the center for legal inclusiveness (cli) is to advance diversity in the legal profession by actively educating and supporting private and public sector legal organizations in their individual campaigns to create cultures of…
Solicits, receives, and distributes funds in cooperation with the Colorado Legal Services program, which provides civil legal aid to low-income persons.
Funding of legal services, pro-bono, and legal education projects.
Justice for the People Legal Centers mission shall include but not be limited to the provision of legal services, grassroots organizing, and education to people and communities who have historically endured harm and trauma caused by our…
Colorado Civil Justice League is an advocacy organization established to foster a balanced and efficient civil justice system for the benefit of all.
Legal representation of dakota county residents with financial need.
To advocate for social justice for people with all types of disabilities.
At Environmental and Animal Defense, our mission is to provide Colorado with access to affordable legal services for environmental and animal issues, in addition to protecting wildlife and their habitats through enforcement of the law. No…
Legal advocacy and representation to victims of violent crimes.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Denver Bar Association and the most unlike its peers is Colorado Juvenile Defender Center Dba Transformative Justice Proj of Colo. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
19 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. 19 of the 20 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 LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds COLORADO CENTER ON LAW AND POLICY ↗
- Who funds COLORADO ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds DENVER BAR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PIKES PEAK JUSTICE & PRO BONO CENTER ↗
- Who funds UNCOMPAHGRE VOLUNTEER LEGAL AID INC ↗
- Who funds ALPINE LEGAL SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds THE HADANOU COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE AND MERCY LEGAL AID CENTER ↗
- Who funds COLORADO POVERTY LAW PROJECT ↗
- Who funds WELD COUNTY LEGAL SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds TESSA ↗
- Who funds COLORADO BAR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF DENVER ↗
- Who funds LARIMER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds DENVER BAR ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds PRO BONO PROJECT OF MESA COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds Colorado Juvenile Defender Center DBA Transformative Justice Proj of Colo ↗
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 Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · Rose Community Foundation · The Colorado Trust · Anschutz Family Foundation · 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 Lawyer Trust Account 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.