· Private foundation
Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 67% of MADGE M & JOSEPH T MOHAR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YOUNG AMERICANS CENTER FOR | $30,000 |
| EMILY GRIFFITH FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| IMPACT ON EDUCATION FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA | $20,000 |
| CROSS PURPOSE | $15,000 |
| TECHNATION CAREERS | $15,000 |
| DENVER PRESS CLUB | $10,000 |
| GOFARM | $10,000 |
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 (FY18–18, $30k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 6% of Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 98% of the giving stays in CO; read by stated purpose it is 88% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +107% since the first grant, against +46% for the ones you funded once.
16 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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
- EGEMILY GRIFFITH FOUNDATION4× · 2021–2024 · $120k · revenue +91%
- IOIMPACT ON EDUCATION INC2× · 2018–2019 · $42k · revenue +233%
- CCCHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FOUNDATION3× · 2017–2019 · $40k · revenue +129%
Funded once
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB SLVone grant, 2020 · $40k
- WEWest End Development Groupone grant, 2021 · $35k
- MCMI CASA RESOURCE CENTERone grant, 2018 · $30k · revenue -4%
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.
We provide training, coaching, community supports and access to leading colorado employers enabling coloradans to acheive economic security, mobility and prosperity.
Denver scholarship foundation (dsf) inspires and empowers denver public schools (dps) students to enroll in and graduate from postsecondary institutions of higher education by providing the tools, knowledge, and financial resources for…
Colorado Thrives exists to support Coloradans to achieve economic mobility through access to good jobs.
To perform education and research priorities that work to strengthen Colorado's economic viability. COBRT Partners works to improve the business climate in our state by focusing on key pillars for a sustainable, growing, and global…
To partner with the community to help children succeed in school and prevent student drop-out for students in greeley evans school district 6.
Colorado center on law and policy is an antipoverty organization advancing the rights of every coloradan.
To support college students in innovative, affordable paths to in-demand careers and financial freedom.
Education for youth throughout mesa county, co
Homegrown pathways was founded on the western slope of colorado with a mission to drive economic mobility through quality, regional career pathways for rural youth, including entrepreneurial pathways. we believe the answer to the…
Community enterprise development services' mission is to support the american dream of financial self-sufficiency, by assisting refugees, immigrants, and those from underserved communities in metro denver who desire to own or strengthen…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Impact On Education Inc and the most unlike its peers is TechNation Careers. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 28 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 EMILY GRIFFITH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds IMPACT ON EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GoFarm ↗
- Who funds MI CASA RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds Denver Press Club ↗
- Who funds CAREERWISE COLORADO ↗
- Who funds CROSSPURPOSE ↗
- Who funds TechNation Careers ↗
- Who funds BAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY OUTREACH SERVICE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds GOLD CROWN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LA PUENTE HOME INC ↗
- Who funds Nathan Yip Foundation ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SAN LUIS VALLEY ↗
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 Denver Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · Daniels Fund · Kenneth Kendal King Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · Denver Broncos Foundation · Gary Philanthropy · The Anschutz Foundation · Western Union Foundation · Mile High United Way 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 Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable 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.