· Public charity
Community Office for Resource Efficiency
Core has been helping the roaring fork valley save energy and cut carbon emissions since 1994.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $304,432 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $456,896 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $152,464 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 · FY2024
- $10k–50k8 grants · $204k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE FARM COLLABORATIVE | $50,000 |
| TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE | $50,000 |
| ASPEN SKIING COMPANY | $40,000 |
| TOWN OF BASALT | $32,000 |
| STOTTS MILL | $25,000 |
| ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES | $25,000 |
| ASPEN MOUNTAIN RESIDENCES | $25,000 |
| MISS STEPHANIES HOUSE LLC | $22,500 |
| COTTLE CARR AND YAW ARCHITECTS | $20,000 |
| AJAX MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES | $14,932 |
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 (FY17–22, $34k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +73% since the first grant, against +48% for the ones you funded once.
36 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 31 since wound down; 5 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, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $107k 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
- CRCENTRAL ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERMACULTURE INST5× · 2019–2023 · $373k · revenue +73% · 65% of their budget
- HFHABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK2× · 2019–2020 · $157k · revenue +28%
- TFThe Farm Collaborative2× · 2020–2024 · $75k · revenue +83%
Funded once
- SBST BENEDICT'S MONASTERYone grant, 2018 · $78k
- CMCOLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGEone grant, 2017 · $75k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $60k
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 broaden the nature of a liberal arts education; teach critical thinking about social & environmental issues; foster understanding of & respect for natural & human communities; & cultivate a sense of place that encourages personal,…
Protecting the open land and special places of the roaring fork and middle colorado river valleys for wildlife, agriculture, and community forever.
Services provided in arapahoe county colorado related to early childhood education intervention issues.
Our mission is to provide individualized educational options where students and teachers engage in playful, exploratory learning by creating a culture of collaboration in a safe, diverse, multi-age environment. Our students are encouraged…
To enhance and advance the interests of its member electric cooperatives through a united effort.
Rogue Climate's mission is to empower Southern Oregon communities most impacted by climate change including low-income, rural, youth, seniors & communities of color, to win climate justice by organizing for clean energy, sustainable jobs &…
Protecting our shrub-steppe and connecting people to this vanishing landscape.
Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.
To provide affordable housing and to promote the wise and sustainable use of the earth's resources.
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…
Education Preschool Through Eight Grade
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Anderson Ranch Arts Center and the most unlike its peers is Energetics Education dba Solar Rollers. 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 34 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 16% 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 10% 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.
25 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. 25 of the 111 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 CENTRAL ROCKY MOUNTAIN PERMACULTURE INST ↗
- Who funds HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROARING FORK ↗
- Who funds The Farm Collaborative ↗
- Who funds THE ARTS CAMPUS AT WILLITS ↗
- Who funds ASPEN PITKIN EMPLOYEE HOUSING INC ↗
- Who funds MARK ROSS MONTESSORI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds COLORADO ROCKY MOUNTAIN SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds Holy Cross Electric Association Inc ↗
- Who funds ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ↗
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: Aspen Community Foundation · The Thrift Shop · Aspen Business Center Foundation · Aspen Skiing Company Environment Foundation · Brady Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Western Colorado Community Foundation Inc · Our Part co Marsha Soffer · Nm Morris Family Foundation · Alpenglow Foundation · Early Milestones Colorado · Rose Community 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 Community Office for Resource Efficiency 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.