· Private foundation
Gorman Foundation Charitable Trust
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k21 grants · $5k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Christ Episcopal Church Aspen | $17,025 |
| Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers | $250 |
| Aspen Valley Hospital Foundation | $250 |
| The Wetlands Initiative | $250 |
| University of Denver | $250 |
| Aspen Center for Physics | $250 |
| Aspen Historical Society | $250 |
| University of Minnesota | $250 |
| Shirley Ryan Ability Lab | $250 |
| Independence Pass Foundation | $250 |
| Roaring Fork Conservancy | $250 |
| Aspen Journalism | $250 |
| Denver Rescue Mission | $250 |
| Aspen Community Foundation | $250 |
| The Blake Schools | $250 |
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 (FY20–25, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 27% 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 +23% since the first grant, against +15% for the ones you funded once.
34 repeat relationships — 21 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down.
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, 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
- MHMercy Health Foundation5× · 2020–2024 · $3k · revenue +3%
- FBFOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIES4× · 2020–2023 · $2k · revenue +23%
- RFROARING FORK CONSERVANCY6× · 2020–2025 · $2k · revenue +73%
Funded once
- VVValley View Foundationone grant, 2022 · $500
- UWUnited Wayone grant, 2020 · $500
WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFPone grant, 2021 · $300 · revenue +15%
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.
Be a catalyst! Ignite our community's passion for nature and science.
To promote public health, safety, and welfare through the improvement of the quality and quantity of drinking water and the development and furtherance of understanding of the problems relating thereto.
We connect people, ideas, and nonprofits to make good happen. our vision is that all of jeffco is thriving.
Partnering to improve quality of life as a nonprofit organization dedicated to mental health and wellness. healing is our purpose, help is our promise, health is our passion.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
To provide essential value to our members, their careers, our partners, and the public, asce will: facilitate the advancement of technology; encourage and provide the tools for lifelong learning; promote professionalism and the profession;…
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Robert R Mccormick Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. 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 58 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
35 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. 35 of the 54 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 Mercy Health Foundation ↗
- Who funds ASPEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIES ↗
- Who funds ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Mountain Rescue Aspen Inc ↗
- Who funds ILLINOIS WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ROBERT R MCCORMICK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY BATTLEMENT TO THE BELLS ↗
- Who funds INDEPENDENCE PASS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds THE BLAKE SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF DENVER ↗
- Who funds Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago ↗
- Who funds Aspen Journalism ↗
- Who funds GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY ↗
- Who funds CHALLENGE ASPEN ↗
- Who funds AMERICARES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE WETLANDS INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds DENVER RESCUE MISSION ↗
- Who funds ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS ↗
- Who funds ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE VOLUNTEER CENTER ↗
- Who funds NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE JOSSELYN CENTER NFP ↗
- Who funds WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF NFP ↗
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: Nm Morris Family Foundation · Alpenglow Foundation · Brady Foundation · Aspen Community Foundation · Arches Foundation · Kemper Educational and Charitable Fund · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Ruth a Carver Foundation · Susan and Stephen Baird Family Foundation C/O Stephen W Baird · Aspen Business Center Foundation · John & Jacolyn Bucksbaum Family Found
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 Gorman Foundation Charitable Trust 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.
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
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.