Skip to content
Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$155k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$30k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$310kEmployment$260kCommunity Improvement$135kHuman Services$90kPublic Safety & Disaster$53kFood & Nutrition$40kYouth Development$40kArts & Culture$28kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%Mi Casa Resource Center: $30k → 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 6% of Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 98% of the giving stays in CO; by stated purpose, 88%.

Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 8.0% directed abroad (not shown)
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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$765k · 16 repeat orgs$240k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +107% since the first grant, against +46% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
11

Total granted

$765k
$210k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+107%
+46%

Still filing today

50%
64%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
PhilanthropyEducationEmploymentArts & CultureHuman ServicesFood & NutritionOther
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

  • EG
    EMILY GRIFFITH FOUNDATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $120k · revenue +91%
  • IO
    IMPACT ON EDUCATION INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $42k · revenue +233%
  • CC
    CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FOUNDATION
    3× · 2017–2019 · $40k · revenue +129%

Funded once

  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB SLV
    one grant, 2020 · $40k
  • WE
    West End Development Group
    one grant, 2021 · $35k
  • MC
    MI CASA RESOURCE CENTER
    one grant, 2018 · $30k · revenue -4%
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
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
2
Colorado Access Foundation
Health
3
Denver Scholarship Foundation

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…

Education
4
Colorado Thrives

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

Community Improvement
5
Colorado Business Roundtable Partners

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…

Education
6
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.

—
7
Colorado Center On Law and Policy

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

Crime & Legal
8
The Colorado Health Foundation
Health
9
Denver Hybrid College

To support college students in innovative, affordable paths to in-demand careers and financial freedom.

Education
10
Mesa County Business Education Foundation

Education for youth throughout mesa county, co

Education
11
Homegrown Pathways Inc

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…

Education
12
Community Enterprise Development Services

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…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Impact On Education Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

15 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. 15 of the 28 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
13/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Young Americans Foundation: $102,650 · OtherYoung Americans FoundationRocky Mountain Micro Finance Instit: $80,000 · OtherRocky Mountain Micro Finance InstitIMPACT ON EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $60,000 · OtherIMPACT ON EDUCATION FOUNDATIONYoung AmericansCenter for Financial: $60,000 · OtherYoung AmericansCenter for FinancialVOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA INC: $52,500 · OtherVOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA INCIMPACT ON EDUCATION INC: $42,300 · OtherIMPACT ON EDUCATION INCCHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $40,200 · OtherCHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FOUNDATIONEmily Griffith Opportunity School: $40,000 · OtherEmily Griffith Opportunity SchoolBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB SLV: $40,000 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB SLVWest End Development Group: $35,000 · OtherYOUNG AMERICANS CENTER FOR: $30,000 · OtherVOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA CO BRANCH: $30,000 · Other+5 more: $59,500 · Other+5 moreEMILY GRIFFITH FOUNDATION: $120,000 · EducationEMILY GRIFFITH F…CAREERWISE COLORADO: $25,000 · EducationCAREERWISE COLOR…GoFarm: $40,000 · Food & NutritionBAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC: $20,000 · EmploymentTechNation Careers: $20,000 · EmploymentMI CASA RESOURCE CENTER: $30,000 · Human ServicesDenver Press Club: $27,500 · Arts & CultureCROSSPURPOSE: $25,000 · Community ImprovementGOLD CROWN FOUNDATION: $15,000 · PhilanthropyNathan Yip Foundation: $5,000 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SAN LUIS VALLEY: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Other$672,150Education$145,000Food & Nutrition$40,000Employment$40,000Human Services$30,000Arts & Culture$27,500Community Improvement$25,000Philanthropy$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEMILY GRIFFITH FOUNDATION: $120,000 over 4y, 3.0% of budgetIMPACT ON EDUCATION INC: $42,300 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetCHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $40,200 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetGoFarm: $40,000 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetMI CASA RESOURCE CENTER: $30,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetDenver Press Club: $27,500 over 3y, 14% of budgetCAREERWISE COLORADO: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCROSSPURPOSE: $25,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTechNation Careers: $20,000 over 2y, 9.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY OUTREACH SERVICE CENTER INC: $15,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetGOLD CROWN FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetLA PUENTE HOME INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SAN LUIS VALLEY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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.

  • 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 BAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC ↗
  • Who funds TechNation Careers ↗
  • 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 ↗

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 FoundationThe Colorado Health F…Colorado Gives Founda…Rose Community Founda…Daniels FundKenneth Kendal King F…Xcel Energy FoundationDenver Broncos Founda…Gary PhilanthropyThe Anschutz Foundati…Western Union Foundat…Mile High United Way …
The Denver FoundationCO32.2× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Madge M & Joseph T Mohar Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 28 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Madge M & Joseph T Mohar’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