Skip to content
Impact 100 Metro Denver at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Impact 100 Metro Denver

To inspire and empower a community of women to be intentional and informed philanthropists, collectively funding transformational grants to metro denver nonprofits.

$274k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Philanthropy$342kCommunity Improvement$212kEducation$177kFood & Nutrition$150kHuman Services$148kEmployment$143kHousing & Shelter$100kEnvironment$71kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $74k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $200k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$179k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOPE COMMUNITIES INC$100,000
PRODIGY VENTURES INC$50,000
BARTON INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY ACTION$50,000
THE GROWHAUS$20,000
SOUTHWEST IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL$16,804
COLORADO NONPROFIT DEVELOPMENT CENTER$12,500
ROOTS FAMILY CENTER$12,500
ROCKY MOUNTAIN MICROFINANCE INSTITUTE$11,908
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 (FY21–24, $223k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%SECOND CHANCE CENTER INC: $100k → 10%MI CASA RESOURCE CENTER: $71k → 12%SOUTHWEST IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL: $35k → 12%SOUTHWEST IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL: $17k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 7% of Impact 100 Metro Denver’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 96% of the giving stays in CO; by stated purpose, 98%.

Impact 100 Metro Denverlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

62%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$695k · 11 repeat orgs$419k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +9% since the first grant, against +2% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
3

Total granted

$695k
$219k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+9%
+2%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 27% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $200k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationEmploymentRecreation & 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

  • MD
    MARIA DROSTE SERVICES OF COLORADO INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $100k · revenue +27%
  • VF
    VOLUNTEERS FOR OUTDOOR COLORADO
    2× · 2022–2023 · $71k · revenue +30%
  • TO
    The Other Side Academy
    2× · 2020–2022 · $65k · revenue +271%

Funded once

  • SC
    Second Chance Center Incgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +123%
  • MC
    MI CASA RESOURCE CENTER
    one grant, 2022 · $71k · revenue -6%
  • MR
    MOUNTAIN RESOURCE CENTER
    one grant, 2021 · $48k · revenue +2%
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
Denver Community Ventures

To empower low-income families and individuals towards self-sufficiency and independent living.

Housing & Shelter
2
Work Options for Women Dba Work Options

Work options for women helps people overcome barriers to sustainable employment by building confidence while providing resources and culinary training.

Religion
3
Colorado Thrives

Colorado Thrives exists to support Coloradans to achieve economic mobility through access to good jobs.

Community Improvement
4
Colorado Food Cluster Inc

Provide opportunities for all to thrive by offering free food resources to communities.

Food & Nutrition
5
Colorado Center On Law and Policy

Colorado center on law and policy is an antipoverty organization advancing the rights of every coloradan.

Crime & Legal
6
Womens Resource Center in Durango

Womens Resource Center (WRC) in Durango connects women and girls to the resources and programming that will help them reach their full potential in all states of their life.

—
7
Center for Nonprofit Excellence

The Center for Nonprofit Excellence strengthens Southern Colorado's nonprofit sector through leadership and resource development, advocacy and collaboration. Together, with our partners, we are co-creating a vibrant community in the Pikes…

—
8
Rebuilding Together Metro Denver Inc

Repairing homes, revitalizing communities, rebuilding lives.

Community Improvement
9
Activate Work Inc

We provide training, coaching, community supports and access to leading colorado employers enabling coloradans to acheive economic security, mobility and prosperity.

Human Services
10
Colorado Springs Independence Center

We work with people with disabilities, their families and the community to create independence so that all may thrive.

Human Services
11
Colorado Fiscal Institute

To provide timely, credible and accessible analyses of fiscal and economic issues facing colorado to inform public policy debates and promote economic prosperity

Community Improvement
12
Colorado Nonprofit Association

Colorado nonprofit association strengthens colorado's nonprofits through education, connection and advocacy.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Colorado Nonprofit Development Center; the most unlike its peers is Mi Casa Resource Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

18 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
9/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE DENVER FOUNDATION: $341,550 · PhilanthropyTHE DENVER FOUNDATIONBARTON INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY ACTION: $50,000 · PhilanthropyBARTON INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY…MARIA DROSTE SERVICES OF COLORADO INC: $100,000 · Community ImprovementMARIA DROSTE SERV…Rocky Mountain Microfinance: $51,908 · Community ImprovementRocky Mountain Mi…MOUNTAIN RESOURCE CENTER: $48,000 · Community ImprovementMOUNTAIN RESOURCE…THE COLORADO NONPROFIT DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $25,000 · Community ImprovementTHE COLORADO NONP…Second Chance Center Inc: $100,000 · Human ServicesSecond Chance Cen…MI CASA RESOURCE CENTER: $70,876 · Human ServicesMI CASA RESOURCE …SOUTHWEST IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL INC: $51,908 · Human ServicesSOUTHWEST IMPROVE…THE LEARNING SOURCE: $112,322 · EducationTHE LEARNI…ROOTS FAMILY CENTER: $25,000 · EducationROOTS FAMI…HOPE COMMUNITIES INC: $100,000 · Housing & ShelterTHE GROWHAUS: $100,000 · OtherTHE GROWHAUSVOLUNTEERS FOR OUTDOOR COLORADO: $70,876 · OtherVOLUNTEERS FOR OUTDOOR…The Other Side Academy: $64,900 · OtherThe Other Side AcademyWEDONTWASTE INC: $50,300 · OtherWEDONTWASTE INCPRODIGY VENTURES INC: $50,000 · EmploymentWOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT: $43,200 · Employment
Philanthropy$391,550Community Improvement$224,908Human Services$222,784Education$137,322Housing & Shelter$100,000Other$286,076Employment$93,200

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE DENVER FOUNDATION: $341,550 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE LEARNING SOURCE: $112,322 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetHOPE COMMUNITIES INC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetMARIA DROSTE SERVICES OF COLORADO INC: $100,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetTHE GROWHAUS: $100,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetSecond Chance Center Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetVOLUNTEERS FOR OUTDOOR COLORADO: $70,876 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetMI CASA RESOURCE CENTER: $70,876 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetThe Other Side Academy: $64,900 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetRocky Mountain Microfinance: $51,908 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetSOUTHWEST IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL INC: $51,908 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetWEDONTWASTE INC: $50,300 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetBARTON INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY ACTION: $50,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetPRODIGY VENTURES INC: $50,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetWOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT: $43,200 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetTHE COLORADO NONPROFIT DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $25,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetROOTS FAMILY CENTER: $25,000 over 2y, 2.5% 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.

The Denver FoundationColorado Gives Founda…Mile High United Way …Rose Community Founda…Anschutz Family Found…The Colorado Health F…Schlessman Foundation…Gates Family Foundati…Daniels FundLatino Community Foun…Trailhead InstituteXcel Energy Foundation
The Denver FoundationCO32.5× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · Rose Community Foundation · Anschutz Family Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Schlessman Foundation Inc · Gates Family Foundation · Daniels Fund · Latino Community Foundation of Colorado Inc · Trailhead Institute · Xcel Energy 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 Impact 100 Metro Denver funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Impact 100 Metro Denver. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    10report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 18 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Impact 100 Metro Denver’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