· Public charity
Parent Possible
We envision a colorado where every family is a thriving ecosystem of learning, laughing, and well-being.
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
- $10k–50k17 grants · $417k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $482k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FOCUS POINTS FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER | $93,219 |
| TELLER PARK EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL | $86,984 |
| SAN LUIS VALLEY AREA HEALTH | $70,500 |
| NORTH RANGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH | $62,637 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE | $59,303 |
| ROOTS FAMILY CENTER | $58,395 |
| SPRING INSTITUTE FOR INTERCULTURAL | $50,899 |
| BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS FOUNDATION | $42,313 |
| JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS | $32,611 |
| GROWING HOME INC | $29,000 |
| FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CENTER | $28,000 |
| LA PLATA FAMILY CENTERS COALITION | $28,000 |
| METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF | $27,839 |
| ARAPAHOE COUNTY EARLY CHILDHOOD | $27,500 |
| GUNNISON COUNTY JUVENILE SERVICES | $27,500 |
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 (FY17–25, $2.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 94% 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 +16% since the first grant, against -27% for the ones you funded once.
39 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 1 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $42k 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
- FPFOCUS POINTS FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER9× · 2017–2025 · $838k · revenue +110%
- SLSAN LUIS VALLEY AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER INC7× · 2019–2025 · $481k · revenue +69%
- NRNORTH RANGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH5× · 2021–2025 · $372k · revenue +13%
Funded once
- DIDenver Inner City Parish Incone grant, 2017 · $14k · revenue -27%
- BOBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ADAMS COUNTY COLORADOone grant, 2017 · $8k
- CECHILDREN'S EQUITY COALITIONone grant, 2019 · $8k · revenue -88%
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.
To expand and improve the comprehensive system of quality early childhood services for families in boulder county. the organization acts as the countywide convener for strategic planning for early childhood programs and services.
Head start and preschool services.
Seeds of Learning is a stand-alone, NAEYC accredited early care and education center, that serves children ages 30 months through age 5. As a community-based facility, Seeds offers parenting classes, educational opportunities for families…
Build a comprehensive system of care and service to support the health and education of young children, their families and their care providers.
Cpcd's programs are based on the comprehensive head start model and are child and family-focused. cpcd adopts a two-generation approach that focuses on creating opportunities for, and addressing the needs of, both vulnerable young children…
Enhance capacity, quality and accessibility of childcare
Early Childhood Collective connects the coalition of early childhood resources that serves growing families in Douglas County. ECCo serves as the fiscal agent and administrative hub for community-based early childhood programs that provide…
Nurturing child development in partnership with families of diverse backgrounds.
To stabilize families living in poverty in the rural colorado counties of cheyenne, elbert, kit carson and lincoln, and to move them out of poverty through education, programs, and collaborations with other agencies.
Family Services of Grant County provides comprehensive health and child development services to low-income individuals and families in grant county.
To make quality early childhood care and education accessible and affordable for east pueblo families, also including colorado preschool program.
To promote healthy families by providing education advocacy and support services that strengthen and empower families foster the optimum development of children and prevent child abuse and neglect.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Suc and the most unlike its peers is Boulder Housing Partners Foundation. 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 31 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 43 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 FOCUS POINTS FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF PUEBLO INC ↗
- Who funds SAN LUIS VALLEY AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH RANGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LLC ↗
- Who funds ROOTS FAMILY CENTER ↗
- Who funds LA PLATA FAMILY CENTERS COALITION ↗
- Who funds ARAPAHOE COUNTY EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds STEAMBOAT SPRINGS DISCOVERY LEARNING CENTER ↗
- Who funds SPRING INSTITUTE FOR INTERCULTURAL LEARNING ↗
- Who funds SUMMIT COUNTY RESOURCE CENTER DBA FAMILY & INTERCULTURAL RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds BRIGHT FUTURES ↗
- Who funds Low Income Family Empowerment Inc ↗
- Who funds DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES INC ↗
- Who funds TRI-COUNTY FAMILY CARE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Teller Park Early Childhood Council ↗
- Who funds HILLTOP HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE FAMILY CENTERLA FAMILIA ↗
- Who funds THE COLORADO NONPROFIT DEVELOPMENT CENTER ↗
- Who funds EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds FAMILY STAR INC ↗
- Who funds Community Coalition for Families and Children ↗
- Who funds GROWING HOME INC ↗
- Who funds SHILOH HOME INC ↗
- Who funds The Pinon Project ↗
- Who funds ESTES VALLEY INVESTMENT IN CHILDHOOD SUC ↗
- Who funds BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GEORGE W CLAYTON TRUST ↗
- Who funds Denver Inner City Parish Inc ↗
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: Temple Hoyne Buell Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Early Milestones Colorado · El Pomar Foundation · Energy Outreach Colorado · Caring for Colorado Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Trailhead Institute · Family Resource Center Association · Anschutz Family Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · The Sam S Bloom Foundation
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 Parent Possible 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.