Skip to content
Sweeneys Share The Love Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Sweeneys Share The Love 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.

$17k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$16k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$43kEnvironment$28kYouth Development$22kHousing & Shelter$19kRecreation & Sports$9kAnimals$9kEducation$7kPhilanthropy$6kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $500
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $16k
$16,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Evergreen Christian Outreach$16,000
Metropolitan State University Athletics$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 (FY21–25, $24k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 33% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Evergreen Christian Outreach: $16k → 7%Family Promise of Greater Denver: $2k → 12%Voluntad: $2k → 12%Voluntad: $2k → 12%Family Promise of Greater Denver: $3k → 12%Family Promise of Greater Denver: $1k → 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.
$167k · 26 repeat orgs$13k to everyone else

26 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 25 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
14

Total granted

$167k
$12k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+72%

Still filing today

69%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $500 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesInternationalEnvironmentHousing & ShelterRecreation & SportsAnimalsOther
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

  • EC
    EVERGREEN CHRISTIAN OUTREACH
    4× · 2018–2025 · $33k · revenue +105%
  • MA
    MOUNTAIN AREA LAND TRUST
    5× · 2018–2023 · $13k · revenue +86%
  • EA
    EVERGREEN ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE
    5× · 2018–2023 · $9k · revenue +74%

Funded once

  • BE
    BAYAUD ENTERPRISES INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +81%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
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
Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment
2
Colorado Water Trust

To restore water to colorado's rivers.

Environment
3
Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver Inc

Seeking to put god's love into action, habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.

—
4
Housing Resources of Western Colorado

To provide affordable housing and to promote the wise and sustainable use of the earth's resources.

—
5
Boulder Watershed Collective

The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…

Environment
6
Aspen Valley Land Trust

Protecting the open land and special places of the roaring fork and middle colorado river valleys for wildlife, agriculture, and community forever.

Environment
7
Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity

Seeking to put god's love into action; habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities, and hope to realize our vision of a world where everyone has a decent place to live. fort collins habitat for humanity adheres…

Housing & Shelter
8
Earthlinks Inc

To cultivate transformation and self-worth with people experiencing homelessness and poverty by creating opportunities through earth-centered programs to restore both people and the planet.

Community Improvement
9
Western Conservation Foundation

Building leaders to protect the west's land, air, and water.

Environment
10
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
11
Rebuilding Together Metro Denver Inc

Repairing homes, revitalizing communities, rebuilding lives.

Community Improvement
12
Colorado Jobs With Justice Inc

Advance workers rights & social justice through building sustained relationships and taking direct action to create concrete change in the lives of working families

Employment
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 Evergreen Middle School Pta. 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

28 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. 28 of the 43 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)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/28
Grantees still filing
24/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Rotary Foundation for Mountain Backpacks: $15,750 · OtherRotary Foundation for Mountain BackpacksPROJECT INTI INC: $10,900 · OtherPROJECT INTI INCIndividual grant recipient: $9,750 · OtherIndividual grant recipientEVERGREEN RECREATION AND PARK FOUNDATION: $6,750 · OtherEVERGREEN RECREATION AND PARK FOUNDATIONBLUE SPRUCE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $6,250 · OtherBLUE SPRUCE HABITAT FOR HUMANITYUrban Peak: $6,000 · OtherUrban PeakInspireActive4All Evergreen: $5,500 · OtherInspireActive4All EvergreenCOLORADO HEADWATERS LAND TRUST: $4,500 · OtherWEDONTWASTE INC: $5,500 · OtherWEDONTWASTE INC+20 more: $26,400 · Other+20 moreEVERGREEN CHRISTIAN OUTREACH: $32,750 · Human ServicesEVERGREEN CHRISTIAN OUTREACHFAMILY PROMISE OF GREATER DENVER INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesFAMILY PROMISE OF GREATER DE…A WOMAN'S PLACE INCORPORATED: $4,500 · Human ServicesA WOMAN'S PLACE INCORPORATEDStreets Hope: $3,000 · Human ServicesStreets Hope+1 more: $1,500 · Human ServicesMOUNTAIN AREA LAND TRUST: $12,500 · EnvironmentTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $500 · EnvironmentEVERGREEN ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE: $9,250 · AnimalsWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $5,000 · InternationalWATERORG: $1,000 · InternationalKIVA MICROFUNDS: $500 · InternationalThe Pad Project: $500 · InternationalWestern Resource Advocates: $6,750 · Crime & LegalColumbine Community Foundation: $5,500 · Philanthropy
Other$97,300Human Services$46,750Environment$13,000Animals$9,250International$7,000Crime & Legal$6,750Philanthropy$5,500

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 budgetEVERGREEN CHRISTIAN OUTREACH: $32,750 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetMOUNTAIN AREA LAND TRUST: $12,500 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetEVERGREEN ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE: $9,250 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetWestern Resource Advocates: $6,750 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBLUE SPRUCE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $6,250 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetColumbine Community Foundation: $5,500 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWEDONTWASTE INC: $5,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY PROMISE OF GREATER DENVER INC: $5,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $5,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCOLORADO HEADWATERS LAND TRUST: $4,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetA WOMAN'S PLACE INCORPORATED: $4,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetTREVOR PROJECT INC: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetStreets Hope: $3,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetDENVER RESCUE MISSION: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJEFFCO ACTION CENTER INC THE ACTION CENTER: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWATERORG: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSERVANCY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Colorado Trail Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF GRAND COUNTY: $1,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetINVEST IN KIDS: $750 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKIVA MICROFUNDS: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHOMES FOR OUR TROOPS INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBootstraps Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetThe Pad Project: $500 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.

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 FoundationXcel Energy FoundationRose Community Founda…The Colorado Health F…Mile High United Way …Mollie Mitchell & Joh…Baird Foundation IncThe Summit FoundationBoettcher FoundationThe Janus Henderson F…Community Foundation …
Colorado Gives FoundationCO33× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · Mollie Mitchell & John Wilson Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · The Summit Foundation · Boettcher Foundation · The Janus Henderson Foundation · Community Foundation of Northern Colorado

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 Sweeneys Share The Love Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sweeneys Share The Love Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%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
    1get no government money at all
    11report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Sweeneys Share The Love Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Sweeneys Share The Love 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 43 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 Sweeneys Share The Love’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