Skip to content
Frasier Meadows Manor Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Frasier Meadows Manor Inc

Build community that inspires and celebrates life.

$12M
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Health$11MHuman Services$207kHousing & Shelter$168kFood & Nutrition$23kEducation$10k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $10,345,714, the rows itemized in this filing. The $12,371,610 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,025,896 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $75k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $75k
  • $250k+1 grant · $10M
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$272M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRASIER LIVING INC$10,195,414
BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS$75,300
SISTER CARMEN$20,000
TRU COMMUNITY CARE$20,000
PRESBYTERIAN MANOR (DBA BOULDER PRESBYTERIAN HOUSING INC)$20,000
HARVEST OF HOPE PANTRY$15,000
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 (FY22–25, $180k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NEDERLAND AREA SENIORS: $12k → 12%TRU COMMUNITY CARE: $20k → 12%BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS: $75k → 12%BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS: $43k → 12%BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS FOUNDATION: $20k → 12%BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS FOUNDATION: $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.
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11M · 7 repeat orgs$132k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue 0% since the first grant, against -5% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
5

Total granted

$11M
$92k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
-5%

Still filing today

43%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $40k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthFood & NutritionHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • FL
    FRASIER LIVING INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $11M · 100% of their budget
  • BH
    BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS FOUNDATION
    4× · 2022–2025 · $148k · revenue +189%
  • CO
    CITY OF BOULDER
    3× · 2022–2024 · $60k

Funded once

  • DA
    DENTAL AID
    one grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue -9%
  • BC
    BOULDER COUNTY RSVP BOARD INC dba CULTIVATE
    one grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue -5%
  • FO
    Friends of the Longmont Senior Centergraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue +203%
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
Senior Homes of Colorado Foundation Inc

Provide affordable and attractive independent living housing for seniors in a neighborhood setting that encourages fellowship and cooperative activities

Housing & Shelter
2
Senior Housing Options Inc

To provide and promote quality affordable housing and services in a caring environment for older adults in colorado.

Housing & Shelter
3
Boulder Community Housing Corporation Inc

The mission statement of Boulder Community Housing Organization is to provide quality, affordable homes and foster thriving communities. They aim to create a diverse, inclusive, and sustainable Boulder by offering affordable housing…

Housing & Shelter
4
Homeward Pikes Peak

Homeward Pikes Peak empowers individuals and families to access stable housing, increase mental health, recovery, and economic stability.

Housing & Shelter
5
Sunshine Home Share Colorado

Sunshine home share colorado ensures quality of life for older adults and strengthens communities through a safe home-sharing model, supportive economic empowerment, and connections to resources and services.

Housing & Shelter
6
NeighborWorks Housing Services of Pueblo Inc

Our mission is to promote healthy, vibrant neighborhoods and serve as a first choice for homebuyer resources in Southern Colorado. We have four pillars: educate, build, lend, and engage, that guide us in everything we do. Our HUD-certified…

Housing & Shelter
7
Seniors' Resource Center Inc

The seniors' resource center (the organization) is a colorado nonprofit organization and a community partner providing person-focused, coordinated services to enhance independence, dignity and quality of life.

Human Services
8
Mesa County Rsvp Inc

Serving the community by utilizing the skills of senior volunteers and placing them in rewarding opportunities.

Philanthropy
9
Boulder Food Rescue

Food redistribution- rescue food that would otherwise go to waste and distribute it to low-income communities across Boulder.

Food & Nutrition
10
Boulder Community Health

To provide our community the highest value healthcare in an innovative, patient-centered environment.

Health
11
High Plains Housing Development Co

To be the leading provider of affordable housing opportunities for low-to-moderate income households in Greeley/Weld County.

Housing & Shelter
12
Senior Center of Boulder City Inc

The senior center of boulder city was formed for the purpose of enriching the lives of adults 55 years of age and older in boulder city, nevada by providing quality nutrition and food services, health maintenance, entertainment,…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tru Community Care; the most unlike its peers is Boulder Housing Partners Foundation. 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

9 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. 9 of the 14 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FRASIER LIVING INC: $10,696,753 · HealthFRASIER LIVING INC+1 more: $29,500 · HealthCITY OF BOULDER: $60,000 · OtherALZHEIMERS DISEASE AND RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATI: $60,000 · OtherSISTER CARMEN: $40,000 · OtherBOULDER COUNTY: $35,000 · OtherBOULDER COUNTY RSVP BOARD INC dba CULTIVATE: $25,000 · OtherCITY OF LOUISVILLE: $10,000 · OtherBOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS FOUNDATION: $147,800 · Human ServicesTRU COMMUNITY CARE: $20,000 · Human ServicesFriends of the Longmont Senior Center: $15,000 · Human ServicesNEDERLAND AREA SENIORS INC: $12,000 · Human ServicesHARVEST OF HOPE PANTRY: $22,500 · Food & NutritionBOULDER PRESBYTERIAN HOUSING INC: $20,000 · Housing & Shelter
Health$10,726,253Other$230,000Human Services$194,800Food & Nutrition$22,500Housing & Shelter$20,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFRASIER LIVING INC: $10,696,753 over 2y, 100% of budgetBOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS FOUNDATION: $147,800 over 4y, 17% of budgetDENTAL AID: $29,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBOULDER COUNTY RSVP BOARD INC dba CULTIVATE: $25,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetHARVEST OF HOPE PANTRY: $22,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetFriends of the Longmont Senior Center: $15,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetNEDERLAND AREA SENIORS INC: $12,000 over 1y, 6.1% 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.

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.

Community Foundation …Colorado Gives Founda…The Longmont Communit…AEC TrustNextfifty InitiativeDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation Boulder CountyCO19.7× affinity7 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation Boulder County · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Longmont Community Foundation · AEC Trust · Nextfifty Initiative · 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 Frasier Meadows Manor Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Frasier Meadows Manor Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 14 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 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 Frasier Meadows Manor’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home