Skip to content
Partners in Hope Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Partners in Hope 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.

$33k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$24k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Youth Development$299kReligion$88kHealth$11kArts & Culture$7kEducation$3kPublic Safety & Disaster$1kCommunity Improvement$500Recreation & Sports$325Other$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $24k
$2,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$39k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YOUTH WITH A MISSION$24,400
GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH$5,000
CANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO$2,000
VALOR CHRISTIAN SCHOOL$1,000
EMMANNE MINISTRIES$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 77% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SAWYER WOODS SCHOLARSHIP FDN: $1k → 14%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $60k → 11%HIRSHBERG FOUNDATION FOR PANCREATIC: $200 → 14%THE ADVENTURE DREAM FOUNDATION: $200 → 3%SERVANTS IN CHRIST: $750 → 7%BRENT'S PLACE: $100 → 8%TARA PERFORMING ARTS HIGH SCHOOL: $4k → 12%COLORADO UPLIFT: $2k → 12%GREEN HILL CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN: $500 → 8%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $49k → 11%COLORADO ACADEMY HOPE FOUNDATION: $100 → 7%BRENT'S PLACE: $100 → 8%TARA PERFORMING ARTS HIGH SCHOOL FDN: $2k → 12%HAVEN OF HOPE: $200 → 12%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $45k → 11%JOHN LESTER FOUNDATION: $200 → 8%TARA PERFORMING ARTS HIGH SCHOOL: $500 → 12%NORTHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $1k → 12%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $42k → 11%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $17k → 8%TARA PERFORMING ARTS HIGH SCHOOL: $500 → 12%VALOR CHRISTIAN SCHOOL: $1k → 12%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $38k → 11%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $15k → 8%PARKINSON ASSOCIATION OF THE ROCKIES: $1k → 12%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $25k → 11%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $13k → 8%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $24k → 11%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $12k → 8%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $8k → 11%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $8k → 8%YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $6k → 11%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $8k → 8%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $6k → 8%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $5k → 8%GREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $3k → 8%EMMANNE MINISTRIES: $1k → 8%PROJECT HELPING: $1k → 8%MUSANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORG: $500 → 8%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 74% of Partners in Hope Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Partners in Hope Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$397k · 5 repeat orgs$14k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +55% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
16

Total granted

$397k
$12k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+55%
+1%

Still filing today

60%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationPhilanthropyRecreation & SportsArts & CultureFood & 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

  • CL
    CANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $8k · revenue +6%
  • TI
    TARA INSTITUTE OF THE PERFORMING ARTS
    3× · 2018–2024 · $5k · revenue +55%
  • BE
    BRENT ELEY FOUNDATION
    2× · 2018–2019 · $200 · revenue +61%

Funded once

  • TP
    TARA PERFORMING ARTS HIGH SCHOOL FDN
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • CU
    COLORADO UPLIFT INC
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +12%
  • PH
    Project Helpinggraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue +39%
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
The Colorado Health Foundation
Health
2
Pikes Peak Athletic Foundation
Recreation & Sports
3
The Elway Foundation
—
4
Cancer League of Colorado Foundation Inc

Cancer League of Colorado Foundation periodically provides funds to Cancer League of Colorado, a related 501(c)(3) entity, which through its committees and advisory boards allocates funds in support of cancer research and cancer patient…

Health
5
The Colorado Parks Foundation Inc
Recreation & Sports
6
The Aspen Strong Foundation
—
7
The Foundation At Rolling Hills

Select local charities and raise money through events throughout the year

Philanthropy
8
Face-to-Face Colorado

Face-to-Face Colorado is an organization that seeks to foster an empowered and connected community of people affected by cleft lip and/or cleft palate across the state. We work with youth born with clefts, their families, friends and care…

Human Services
9
Spira Giving Colorado
Arts & Culture
10
Colorado Health Institute
Health
11
Boulder Police Foundation

Boulder Police Foundation's primary purpose is to promote community welfare and safety by strengthening connections and fostering positive interactions between the City of Boulder Police Department and community members, ensuring the…

Public Safety & Disaster
12
Denver Kiwanis Foundation
Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Colorado Uplift Inc; the most unlike its peers is Greenwood Village Police Foundation. 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

13 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. 13 of the 23 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)
13/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YOUTH WITH A MISSION: $296,928 · OtherYOUTH WITH A MISSIONGREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH: $86,870 · OtherGREENWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH+8 more: $6,050 · OtherCANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INC: $8,050 · HealthProject Helping: $1,000 · HealthPARKINSON ASSOCIATION OF THE ROCKIES: $1,000 · Health+2 more: $400 · HealthTARA INSTITUTE OF THE PERFORMING ARTS: $5,000 · Arts & CultureCOLORADO UPLIFT INC: $2,000 · EducationNorthfield High School Foundation: $1,000 · EducationGreenwood Village Police Foundation: $1,000 · Food & NutritionEMMANNE MINISTRIES: $1,000 · InternationalHAVEN OF HOPE: $200 · PhilanthropyHIRSHBERG FOUNDATION FOR PANCREATIC CANC: $200 · PhilanthropyLACROSSE THE NATIONS: $325 · Recreation & Sports
Other$389,848Health$10,450Arts & Culture$5,000Education$3,000Food & Nutrition$1,000International$1,000Philanthropy$400Recreation & Sports$325

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INC: $8,050 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetTARA INSTITUTE OF THE PERFORMING ARTS: $5,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetCOLORADO UPLIFT INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetProject Helping: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGreenwood Village Police Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetPARKINSON ASSOCIATION OF THE ROCKIES: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNorthfield High School Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetEMMANNE MINISTRIES: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLACROSSE THE NATIONS: $325 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHAVEN OF HOPE: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHIRSHBERG FOUNDATION FOR PANCREATIC CANC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBRENT ELEY FOUNDATION: $200 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJOHN LESTER FOUNDATION: $200 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 CANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INC ↗
  • Who funds TARA INSTITUTE OF THE PERFORMING ARTS ↗
  • Who funds COLORADO UPLIFT INC ↗
  • Who funds Project Helping ↗
  • Who funds Greenwood Village Police Foundation ↗
  • Who funds PARKINSON ASSOCIATION OF THE ROCKIES ↗
  • Who funds Northfield High School Foundation ↗
  • Who funds EMMANNE MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds LACROSSE THE NATIONS ↗
  • Who funds HAVEN OF HOPE ↗
  • Who funds HIRSHBERG FOUNDATION FOR PANCREATIC CANC ↗
  • Who funds BRENT ELEY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds JOHN LESTER FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Colorado Gives Founda…The Denver FoundationAmerican Endowment Fo…American Online Givin…Network for GoodNatl Christian Charit…The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Colorado Gives FoundationCO16.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Partners in Hope Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Partners in Hope 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Partners in Hope Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Partners in Hope 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 23 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 Partners in Hope’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