· Private foundation
Karl Friedman Family Foundation
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.
Read this first · the figures below need context
98% of Karl Friedman Family Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Rose Community Foundation, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $6k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $227k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ROSE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $127,000 |
| ASPEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| DENVER HEALTH FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| CHILDRENS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION | $500 |
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 (FY17–17, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 97% 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.
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 +36% since the first grant, against +33% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 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, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k 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
- BCBICYCLE COLORADO2× · 2017–2018 · $20k · revenue +31%
- TYThe YESS Institute2× · 2017–2018 · $12k · revenue +77%
MICHIGAN HUMANE SOCIETY2× · 2017–2018 · $150 · revenue +36%
Funded once
- AAAll Americans Voteone grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue 0%
SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCEone grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue 0%- NENew Era Colorado Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +76%
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.
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…
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.
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…
Advance workers rights & social justice through building sustained relationships and taking direct action to create concrete change in the lives of working families
To provide timely, credible and accessible analyses of fiscal and economic issues facing colorado to inform public policy debates and promote economic prosperity
Empower colorado education leaders through advocacy, professional learning and networking to deliver on the promise of public education
See schedule o colorado state university foundation assists in the promotion, development, and enhancement of facilities and educational programs and enhancements of faculty, students, and alumni of colorado state university (csu). this is…
The barton institute supports leaders and their communities who are working to develop and foster places for opportunity, connection, and belonging in metro denver.
Promote common business interests of its members, including improving the business climate and the economy of the state of colorado.
Services provided in arapahoe county colorado related to early childhood education intervention issues.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Colorado Gives Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Donnell-Kay Foundation Inc. 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 32 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
25 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. 25 of the 31 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 THE DENVER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ASPEN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Rose Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds All Americans Vote ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds BICYCLE COLORADO ↗
- Who funds New Era Colorado Foundation ↗
- Who funds HIGH LINE CANAL CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds The YESS Institute ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION COLORADO ↗
- Who funds DONNELL-KAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds RISE COLORADO ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITALS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds New Leaders Council ↗
- Who funds THE WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF COLORADO INC ↗
- Who funds THE COLORADO NONPROFIT DEVELOPMENT CENTER ↗
- Who funds COLORADO GIVES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING FOR KIDS ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Colorado Foundation ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds COLORADO NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY SHARING ↗
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: The Colorado Health Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 Karl Friedman Family Foundation 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.