Skip to content

· Private foundation

Muhr Hoerter 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.

$12k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Human Services$24kEmployment$8kHousing & Shelter$8kReligion$7kHealth$6kEducation$4kPublic Safety & Disaster$2kEnvironment$1k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$227k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE ACTION CENTER$4,500
KENNEDYS DISEASE ASSOCIATION$2,000
SAMARITAN HOUSE$2,000
WOMENS BEAN PROJECT$1,500
CHRIST ON THE MOUNTAIN$500
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$500
ST JOH VIANNEY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY$500
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 (FY20–24, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 62% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER: $1k → 12%SENIORS RESOURCE CENTER: $750 → 12%FAMILY TREE INC: $1k → 7%FAMILY TREE INC: $550 → 7%AMERICAN RED CROSS MILE HIGH CHAPTR: $750 → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$55k · 11 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against +33% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
7

Total granted

$55k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+33%

Still filing today

64%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesEmploymentEducationOther
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

  • JA
    JEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTER
    4× · 2020–2025 · $13k · revenue +24%
  • WB
    WOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT
    6× · 2020–2025 · $8k · revenue +58%
  • KD
    KENNEDY'S DISEASE ASSOCIATION INC
    2× · 2022–2025 · $4k · revenue +113%

Funded once

  • AN
    American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches
    one grant, 2024 · $750 · revenue +3%
  • CC
    CONSERVATION COLO EDUCATION FUNDS
    one grant, 2024 · $750
  • SJ
    ST JOHN VIANNEY THEOLOGICAL SEMINAR
    one grant, 2022 · $500
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
Summit Community Care Clinic Inc

Provide exceptional, integrated, patient-centered health care services designed to meet the needs of all patients, particularly those who experience barriers to accessing care, regardless of their ability to pay.

Health
2
Union Health System

To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.

Health
3
Banner -University Medical Group

Assist banner health complete its mission to make health care easier so life can be better by providing integrated & coordinated care & population health management.

Health
4
Colorado Gives Foundation

We connect people, ideas, and nonprofits to make good happen. our vision is that all of jeffco is thriving.

Philanthropy
5
Mental Health Center of Boulder County Inc

Partnering to improve quality of life as a nonprofit organization dedicated to mental health and wellness. healing is our purpose, help is our promise, health is our passion.

—
6
Colorado Legal Services

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.

Crime & Legal
7
University Health Inc

Primary functions are the coordination and delivery of health care resources and services, health care education for the hospital service area, long range analysis of health care needs and development of programs, and arranging for…

—
8
Southwest Colorado Mental Health Center Inc

To make a meaningful difference through healthcare innovation and caring for the whole person.

Health
9
Regional West Health Services

Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.

Health
10
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States Inc

The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…

Health
11
Hospice of Metro Denver Inc

To encircle those facing advanced illness with unprecedented levels of comfort, compassion, and expertise.

Human Services
12
University Family Physicians Inc

Engage actively and continuously in medical research, education and training in the practice of medicine in conjunction with the department of family medicine of the indiana university school of medicine and indiana university…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jeffco Action Center Inc the Action Center; the most unlike its peers is American Heart Association Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 20 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTER: $13,000 · OtherJEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTERTHW ACTION CENTER: $7,500 · OtherTHW ACTION CENTERCHRIST ON THE MOUNTAIN: $6,000 · OtherCHRIST ON THE MOUNTAINSAMARITAN HOUSE: $5,000 · OtherSAMARITAN HOUSESMARITAN HOUSE: $3,000 · OtherSMARITAN HOUSE+7 more: $3,250 · Other+7 moreWOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT: $8,000 · EmploymentWOMEN'S BEAN PR…KENNEDY'S DISEASE ASSOCIATION INC: $3,500 · HealthKENNEDY'S …LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $1,800 · HealthLUTHERAN M…American Heart Association Inc: $250 · HealthSENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER INC: $1,750 · Human ServicesFAMILY TREE INC: $1,550 · Human ServicesAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $750 · Human ServicesUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $3,600 · Education
Other$37,750Employment$8,000Health$5,550Human Services$4,050Education$3,600

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetJEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTER: $13,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetWOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT: $8,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $3,600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKENNEDY'S DISEASE ASSOCIATION INC: $3,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetLUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $1,800 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER INC: $1,750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY TREE INC: $1,550 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $750 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $250 over 1y, 0.0% 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 JEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTER ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S BEAN PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds KENNEDY'S DISEASE ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY TREE INC ↗
  • Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
  • Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗

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.

Schlessman Foundation IncCO14.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Schlessman Foundation Inc · Colorado Gives Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Muhr Hoerter Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Muhr Hoerter 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.

    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 20 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Muhr Hoerter’s filings →

    More from the funding graph