Skip to content
George W Hopper Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

George W Hopper Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$40k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$8k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Youth Development$143kArts & Culture$27kEducation$22kHuman Services$12kRecreation & Sports$8kHousing & Shelter$4k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$8,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$531k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GIRLS ATHLETIC LEADERSHIP SCHOOLS$8,000
YOUNG AMERICANS CTR FOR FINL EDUC$8,000
HUERFANO COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES$8,000
COLORADO YOUTH TENNIS FOUNDATION$8,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUEBLO CNTY$8,000
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 (FY17–17, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%PRAIRIE FAMILY CENTER: $3k → 11%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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$190k · 9 repeat orgs$26k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
5

Total granted

$190k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+104%

Still filing today

56%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Youth DevelopmentArts & CultureHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsHousing & 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

  • BG
    Boys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County
    7× · 2018–2024 · $33k · revenue +265%
  • DA
    DURANGO ARTS CENTER INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $27k · revenue +16%
  • DY
    DENVER YOUTH PROGRAM
    2× · 2017–2018 · $10k · revenue +236%

Funded once

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUEBLO CNTY
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
  • HC
    HOPE COMMUNITIES INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $4k · revenue +126%
  • PF
    Prairie Family Center
    one grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue -6%
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
Colorado Wellness Center for Girls
—
2
Youth & Family Connections Co Trestle Inc

Youth and Family Connections provides youth and families resources and alternatives that lead to a successful life.

Human Services
3
Denver Area Youth Services

To promote and provide a continuum of human services to youth and their families.

Human Services
4
Colorado Youth Outdoors Charitable Trust

Building Relationships through Traditional Outdoor Recreation

Environment
5
Boys & Girls Club of Northwest Colo

The mission of the clubs is to enable and inspire the youth of our area to reach their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens. the clubs offers core programs designed to engage youth with peers and caring adults to…

Youth Development
6
Gunnison Council for the Arts

The Gunnison Arts Center creates community through the arts by providing accessible and inclusive programs, events, and educational experiences that foster creativity, support local artists, and enrich lives.

Arts & Culture
7
Vive

VIVE addresses the health equity and wellness needs of many of Colorados low-income youth, who face significant health disparities and often lack access to engaging physical activity and health education.

Youth Development
8
Boys & Girls Club of San Juan County

Our Mission is to inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us the most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens.

Youth Development
9
Denver Area Youth for Christ Inc
Youth Development
10
Jewish Community Centers of Denver

Provide recreational, cultural, education, and social programs to the community.

Human Services
11
Durango Chamber of Commerce

The Durango Chamber of Commerce is a membership based organization that promotes and supports the local business economy.

—
12
Durango Early Learning Center Inc

Nurturing child development in partnership with families of diverse backgrounds.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County; the most unlike its peers is Hope Communities Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 15 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Boys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County: $33,000 · OtherBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo CountyYOUNG AMERICANS CTR FOR FINL EDUC: $32,000 · OtherYOUNG AMERICANS CTR FOR FINL EDUCGIRLS ATHLETIC LEADERSHIP SCHOOLS: $22,000 · OtherGIRLS ATHLETIC LEADERSHIP SCHOOLSGIRLS ON THE RUN OF W COLORADO: $13,000 · OtherGIRLS ON THE RUN OF W COLORADOYWCA OF BOULDER CNTY: $9,000 · OtherYWCA OF BOULDER CNTYWomens Resource Center in Durango: $6,000 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUEBLO CNTY: $5,000 · Other+2 more: $6,000 · OtherHuerfano County Youth Services (aka Sangre De Cristo Center for Youth): $38,000 · Youth DevelopmentHuerfano County Youth Ser…DENVER YOUTH PROGRAM: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentDENVER YOUTH PROGRAMDURANGO ARTS CENTER INC: $27,000 · Arts & CultureDURANGO ARTS C…COLORADO YOUTH TENNIS FOUNDATION: $8,000 · Recreation & SportsHOPE COMMUNITIES INC: $4,000 · Housing & ShelterPrairie Family Center: $3,000 · Human Services
Other$126,000Youth Development$48,000Arts & Culture$27,000Recreation & Sports$8,000Housing & Shelter$4,000Human Services$3,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHuerfano County Youth Services (aka Sangre De Cristo Center for Youth): $38,000 over 8y, 10% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Pueblo County: $33,000 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetDURANGO ARTS CENTER INC: $27,000 over 7y, 0.8% of budgetDENVER YOUTH PROGRAM: $10,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCOLORADO YOUTH TENNIS FOUNDATION: $8,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetWomens Resource Center in Durango: $6,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetHOPE COMMUNITIES INC: $4,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BOULDER VALLEY: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WELD COUNTY INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Colorado Gives Founda…El Pomar FoundationAnschutz Family Found…The Denver FoundationMile High United Way …The Colorado Health F…Adolph Coors Foundati…The Women's Foundatio…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Colorado Gives FoundationCO20.8× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Colorado Gives Foundation · El Pomar Foundation · Anschutz Family Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · The Colorado Health Foundation · Adolph Coors Foundation · The Women's Foundation of Colorado Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 George W Hopper Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from George W Hopper Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    5report 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, FY20–25
    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 15 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on George W Hopper Family’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