Skip to content

· Private foundation

Pro Cyclist Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$72k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it funds
0181% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Recreation & Sports$540kCivil Rights$14kHealth$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $56k
$5,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$2k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TAM CYCLING$40,000
USA CYCLING$16,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
CCB CYCLING EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC$5,000
Individual grant recipient$3,500
Individual grant recipient$2,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%HOT TUBES DEVELOPMENT CYCLING TEAM INC: $35k → 8%EUROCROSS ACADEMY: $5k → 9%VELOSPORT CYCLING: $10k → 10%AEVOLO CYCLING INC: $45k → 17%ROXO RACING: $5k → 10%ON TO CYCLING: $50k → 10%MIDWEST CYCLING: $4k → 17%EWERT: $1k → 3%USA CYCLING: $150k → 9%HOT TUBES DEVELOPMENT CYCLING TEAM INC: $25k → 8%LUX DEVELOPMENT: $45k → 10%AEVOLO CYCLING INC: $25k → 17%PEDALGOGY: $35k → 10%MIDWEST CYCLING: $3k → 17%USA CYCLING: $25k → 9%HOT TUBES DEVELOPMENT CYCLING TEAM INC: $10k → 8%LUX DEVELOPMENT: $25k → 10%USA CYCLING: $16k → 9%CCB CYCLING EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $5k → 8%USA CYCLING: $4k → 9%WE DEVELOPMENT: $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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
WI
NY
MA
CA
CO
SC
TX
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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$411k · 5 repeat orgs$225k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
10

Total granted

$411k
$173k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
+91%

Still filing today

80%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 27% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $53k went to new ones.

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

  • UC
    USA CYCLING INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $195k · revenue +49%
  • HT
    HOT TUBES DEVELOPMENT CYCLING TEAM INC
    3× · 2021–2023 · $70k · revenue +53%
  • AC
    AEVOLO CYCLING INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $70k · revenue +20%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • TT
    TEAM TWENTY24 CYCLING
    one grant, 2021 · $40k
  • P
    PEDALGOGYgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $35k · revenue +296%
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
Evoke Cycling Foudation Inc

Provide cycling to youngsters

—
2
Competitive Edge Racing
Recreation & Sports
3
Skyline Mountain Bike Team Inc
Recreation & Sports
4
Ontogenesis Inc
Recreation & Sports
5
Boulder Valley Cycling Alliance

Develop, coach and inspire junior cycling athletes

Recreation & Sports
6
Kentucky Flyers Cycling Inc
—
7
Bicycle Rides Northwest

Cycling

—
8
Pchsmtb

Middle and high school MT bike team

—
9
MadHatter Cycling
Recreation & Sports
10
New Jersey Bicycling Association

Promoting, supporting and expanding bicycle racing in New Jersey

—
11
River Ratz Cycling Inc

To support bicycle activities of all types for riders of all ages and levels of interest.

—
12
Leborne Development

To create a healthy and competitive environment among talented junior cyclists, ages 13-18 as well as u23 riders, from the northwest arkansas region. we look to raise a generation of young cyclists who can compete at the regional, national…

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Usa Cycling Inc; the most unlike its peers is Aevolo Cycling 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, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 19 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

USA CYCLING INC: $194,880 · Recreation & SportsUSA CYCLING INCHOT TUBES DEVELOPMENT CYCLING TEAM INC: $70,000 · Recreation & SportsHOT TUBES DEVELOPMENT CYCLING TEAM INCAEVOLO CYCLING INC: $70,000 · Recreation & SportsAEVOLO CYCLING INCTAM CYCLING: $40,000 · Recreation & SportsTAM CYCLINGPEDALGOGY: $35,000 · Recreation & SportsPEDALGOGY+3 more: $20,000 · Recreation & SportsLUX DEVELOPMENT CORP: $70,000 · OtherLUX DEVELOPMENT CORPIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTEAM TWENTY24 CYCLING: $40,000 · OtherTEAM TWENTY24 CYCLINGIndividual grant recipient: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+7 more: $21,047 · Other+7 more
Recreation & Sports$429,880Other$206,047

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 budgetUSA CYCLING INC: $194,880 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetLUX DEVELOPMENT CORP: $70,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetHOT TUBES DEVELOPMENT CYCLING TEAM INC: $70,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetAEVOLO CYCLING INC: $70,000 over 2y, 9.3% of budgetTAM CYCLING: $40,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetVelosport Cycling Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetEUROCROSSACADEMY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetCcb Cycling Education Foundation Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 4.9% 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 USA CYCLING INC ↗
  • Who funds LUX DEVELOPMENT CORP ↗
  • Who funds HOT TUBES DEVELOPMENT CYCLING TEAM INC ↗
  • Who funds AEVOLO CYCLING INC ↗
  • Who funds TAM CYCLING ↗
  • Who funds PEDALGOGY ↗
  • Who funds Velosport Cycling Inc ↗
  • Who funds EUROCROSSACADEMY INC ↗
  • Who funds Ccb Cycling Education Foundation 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.

USA Cycling Development FoundationCO13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: USA Cycling Development 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 Pro Cyclist Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pro Cyclist Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%10%23%40%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
    2get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.

    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 19 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 Pro Cyclist’s filings →

    More from the funding graph