Skip to content

· Private foundation

Knapp Foundation

$60k
Granted FY2019
7
Grants FY2019
3
States reached
$17k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Knapp Foundation’s FY2020 grant dollars went to Our Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2020 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2019, the last year Knapp Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 7 organizations, $60k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

3
’17
1
’18
7
’19
0
’20

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2020.

Education$38kHealth$17kYouth Development$16kFood & Nutrition$10kPhilanthropy$8kHuman Services$5kPublic Benefit$5k
02FY2019 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k4 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $37k
$8,375
Median grant
3
States reached
$179
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VAIL HEALTH FOUNDATION$16,667
STONE BARNS CENTER FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE$10,000
COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE FOUNDATION$10,000
EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF EAGLE COUNTY$8,375
TOWN OF VAIL$5,000
FULFILLMENT FUND$5,000
VAIL VETERANS FOUNDATION INC$5,000
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 (FY17–19, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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%FULFILLMENT FUND: $5k → 14%FULFILLMENT FUND: $2k → 14%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.

42%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$38k · 3 repeat orgs$53k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call). Read against FY2019, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
1

Total granted

$38k
$16k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
+65%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 39% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $37k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
Human ServicesHealthArts & CulturePhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • EF
    EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF EAGLE CNTY
    2× · 2018–2019 · $15k · revenue +843%
  • CM
    COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2017–2019 · $15k · revenue +42%
  • FF
    FULFILLMENT FUND
    2× · 2017–2019 · $7k · revenue -18%

Funded once

  • Y
    YOUTHPOWER365graduated
    one grant, 2017 · $16k · revenue +65%
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
Vail Clinic Inc % Vhh Accounting Department

Elevating health across our mountain communities.

Health
2
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

We educate the next generation of leaders to improve the health of our society.

Education
3
Southern Vermont Area Health Education Center Inc

Enhancing community efforts to obtain, maintain and retain the primary healthcare workforce in southern vermont.

Health
4
Vail-Summit Research & Education Foundat
Education
5
Sierra Harvest

Founded in 2007, sierra harvest is building a community that values and eats an abundance of fresh, local, seasonal food; training successful local farmers that are increasing sustainable food production; and creating equitable access to…

Food & Nutrition
6
Valley Vision

Valley vision is a civic leadership organization dedicated to improving the livability of the sacramento region. through research and action, we collaborate on bold, long-term solutions that improve people's lives.

Community Improvement
7
The Greeley Dream Team Inc

To partner with the community to help children succeed in school and prevent student drop-out for students in greeley evans school district 6.

—
8
Nourish Colorado

Nourish colorado is a statewide nonprofit organization committed to strengthening connections between farms and communities so that all coloradans have equitable access to fresh, nutritious foods. we pursue systemic changes through state…

Health
9
Edward Via Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine

The mission of the edward via college of osteopathic medicine (vcom) is to prepare globally-minded, community-focused physicians to meet the needs of rural and medically underserved populations and promote research to improve human health.

Education
10
Cherry Creek Schools Foundation

The cherry creek schools foundation's mission is to enhance the educational experience and whole wellbeing of cherry creek school district students, staff, and families through community support that provides inclusive and innovative…

—
11
The Colorado Health Foundation
Health
12
Cabrillo Education Foundation

Cef is serving as a student success innovation fund to promote new, creative and powerful initiatives to improve students' education in our community. it is an advocate for and funds high leverage programs that have well defined outcomes…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is YOUTHPOWER365; the most unlike its peers is Stone Barns Restoration Corp Dba Stone Barns Center for Food & Agri. 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

8 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. 8 of the 9 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YOUTHPOWER365: $16,161 · PhilanthropyYOUTHPOWER365EAGLE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $7,500 · PhilanthropyEAGLE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUN…COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 · OtherCOLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLE…TOWN OF VAIL: $5,000 · OtherTOWN OF VAILVAIL HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION: $16,667 · HealthVAIL HEALTH SERVICE…EDUCATION FOUNDATION OF EAGLE CNTY: $15,375 · EducationEDUCATION FOUNDAT…FULFILLMENT FUND: $7,331 · Human ServicesFULFILLMENT FU…VAIL VETERANS FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesVAIL VETERANS …Stone Barns Restoration Corp DBA Stone Barns Center for Food & Agri: $10,000 · Arts & CultureStone Barns…
Philanthropy$23,661Other$20,000Health$16,667Education$15,375Human Services$12,331Arts & Culture$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVAIL HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION: $16,667 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetEDUCATION FOUNDATION OF EAGLE CNTY: $15,375 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetCOLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetStone Barns Restoration Corp DBA Stone Barns Center for Food & Agri: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEAGLE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFULFILLMENT FUND: $7,331 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetVAIL VETERANS FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Kelton Family FoundationCO13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Kelton Family 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 Knapp Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Knapp Foundation. 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%5%10%15%20%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 · 0–20%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Knapp Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Knapp Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 9 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2019, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Knapp’s filings →

    More from the funding graph