· Public charity
Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium Dba 35 Mil
Denver area educational telecommunications consortium (daetc dba 35 mile foundation) is organized and will be operated exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific and social welfare purposes within the meaning of sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the internal revenue code.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $281,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $290,179 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $8,679 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $224k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER | $97,000 |
| ACCELERATE ACTION INC | $75,000 |
| NATIONAL DIGITAL INCLUSION AL | $51,500 |
| SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND | $25,000 |
| WORKING AMERICA | $25,000 |
| OPEN MEDIA FOUNDATION | $8,000 |
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 (FY18–25, $163k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 82% 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 +23% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
16 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 16% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $135k 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
- WFWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC3× · 2020–2022 · $101k · revenue +57%
- CACOLOR ACTION FUND3× · 2020–2022 · $69k · revenue +23%
- WAWORKING AMERICA2× · 2023–2025 · $55k · revenue +142%
Funded once
- VYVOTE YES FOR KIDSone grant, 2023 · $66k
- PFPIE FOR PROVIDERS LTDone grant, 2023 · $46k · revenue 0% · 30% of their budget
- FEFamily Engagement Labone grant, 2023 · $46k · revenue -38%
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.
Colorado center on law and policy is an antipoverty organization advancing the rights of every coloradan.
Colorado organization for latina opportunity and reproductive rights (color) is a community-rooted nonprofit organization that works to enable latinx individuals and their families lead safe, healthy, self-determined lives.
AIA Colorado,is the voice of the architecture profession in Colorado. Through advocacy, leadership development, education and resources for architects, the organization supports architecture professionals in designing a better world where…
Advance workers rights & social justice through building sustained relationships and taking direct action to create concrete change in the lives of working families
Advancing the well-being of all coloradans through relationships free from abuse and oppression.
Colorado people's alliance (copa) is a racial justice, member-driven organization dedicated to advancing and winning progressive social change locally, statewide and nationally. copa builds power to improve the lives of all coloradans…
The Colorado Democracy Alliance is an organization committed to protecting democracy and expanding Colorados civic engagement ecosystem.
Towards justice is a nonprofit law firm that seeks to advance economic equity and worker power through impact litigation, strategic policy advocacy, and collaboration with organizers and public agencies. we were founded in response to the…
To provide meaningful access to high quality, civil legal services in the pursuit of justice for as many low income persons and members of vulnerable populations throughout colorado as possible.
Une action builds people power for racial and economic justice so all coloradans thrive. we do this by organizing in our communities across race, winning bold policy solutions for all, and building a multiracial voting majority that…
Ethics watch uses high impact legal actions to hold public officials and organizations accountable for unethical activities that undermine the integrity of government in colorado. the organization accomplishes its mission by combining…
Coloradans for food justice is building community power by making sure that every eater in colorado has a voice to make transformative change that represents a more just food system by mobilizing values-driven voters statewide.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Color Action Fund and the most unlike its peers is Pie for Providers Ltd. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 20 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% 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.
46 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. 46 of the 50 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 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOULDER COUNTY ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC COMMUNICATORS INC ↗
- Who funds CIRC ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds WORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC ↗
- Who funds SOUL 2 SOUL SISTERS ↗
- Who funds ACCELERATE ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds MI FAMILIA VOTA ↗
- Who funds COLORADO PEOPLE'S ACTION ↗
- Who funds COLOR ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds WORKING AMERICA ↗
- Who funds UNITED FOR A NEW ECONOMY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL DIGITAL INCLUSION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PIE FOR PROVIDERS LTD ↗
- Who funds Family Engagement Lab ↗
- Who funds PROJECT FOUNDED INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds EMPIRICAL RESOLUTION INC ↗
- Who funds American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado ↗
- Who funds COLOROFCHANGEORG ↗
- Who funds SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND ↗
- Who funds TIDES ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds GREAT EDUCATION COLORADO ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY ACTION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE'S ACTION ↗
- Who funds Rose Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds NEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION ↗
- Who funds GREAT EDUCATION COLORADO ISSUE COMMITTEE ↗
- Who funds COLORADO FISCAL INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds CONNECT HUMANITY ↗
- Who funds GREAT EDUCATION COLORADO ↗
- Who funds PROGRESSNOW COLORADO ↗
- Who funds COBALT ADVOCATES ↗
- Who funds 9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds New Era Colorado Action Fund ↗
- Who funds ONE COLORADO ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds Casa De Paz ↗
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: Rose Community Foundation · Tides Foundation · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Tides Advocacy · Instructional Telecommunications Foundation Inc · The Denver Foundation · Community Foundation Boulder County · The Colorado Health Foundation · The Women's Foundation of Colorado Inc · The Colorado Trust
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 Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium Dba 35 Mil 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium Dba 35 Mil?
Find your warmest path to Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium Dba 35 Mil through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.