· Community foundation
The Community Foundation of Utah
We are utah's partner in philanthropy, pioneering innovation and collaboration to invest in our community today for a brighter tomorrow.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k42 grants · $289k
- $10k–50k180 grants · $3.7M
- $50k–250k48 grants · $4.7M
- $250k+29 grants · $51M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Church of Jesus Christ | $18,847,593 |
| University of Utah | $4,983,119 |
| Schwab Charitable | $2,693,582 |
| Tabitha's Way | $2,500,000 |
| Utah State University | $2,151,560 |
| Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc | $1,768,818 |
| Friends of Switchpoint Inc | $1,596,856 |
| Utah Impact Partnership | $1,538,400 |
| The Other Side Village | $1,515,000 |
| American Gift Fund | $1,448,800 |
| Intermountain Healthcare Foundation | $1,166,000 |
| Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund | $1,164,012 |
| Huntsman Cancer Foundation | $1,131,000 |
| University of Utah Growth Capital Partners Foundation | $1,100,000 |
| Columbia University | $1,020,000 |
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 (FY17–23, $9.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 9% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +35% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
303 repeat relationships — 196 still active in FY2024, 107 since wound down; 84 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7.5M 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
- TOThe Other Side Academy8× · 2017–2024 · $6.7M · revenue +789%
- FOFRIENDS OF SWITCHPOINT INC7× · 2017–2024 · $4.4M · revenue +677%
- TWTABITHA'S WAY5× · 2017–2024 · $3.9M · revenue +129%
Funded once
- CFCenter for Latter-Day Saint Arts Incone grant, 2022 · $550k · revenue -49% · 64% of their budget
- SWStand With Ukraine Inc dba To Ukraine With Loveone grant, 2023 · $502k · revenue -90%
- TITHIS IS THE PLACE FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2022 · $500k · revenue +23%
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.
Utah foundation's mission is to produce objective, thorough and well- reasoned research and analysis that promotes the effective use of public resources, a thriving economy, a well-prepared workforce and a high quality of life for utahns.…
We are utah's partner in philanthropy, pioneering innovation and collaboration to invest in our community today for a brighter tomorrow.
Provide support to the University of Utah Growth Capital Partners Foundation in Charitable, Educational and Scientific purposes.
To advance sustainable health care solutions for underserved utahns through better access, education, and public policy.
Democracy Means Equality, Freedom & Justice: It means having a representative government. UDC is here to transform Utah politics and ensure that every voice counts.
World trade center utah accelerates growth for utah companies through our global networks, programs, and services.
Utah film center inspires and engages diverse audiences to initiate conversation and community building through curated film exhibition, educational programs, and artist support.
Utah Leads set out to understand what makes our information ecosystem in Utah unique, who is influencing policy formation in Utah, how that influence works in practice through multiple channels and across channels, and what policy…
Utah water ways promotes water conservation through collaboration between government, non-profit groups, and private sector partners and empowers the public to be wise stewards of this critical shared resource.
The organization's mission is to preserve and promote individual civil rights and civil liberties as guaranteed by the united states and utah constitutions and the civil rights laws within the state of utah.
Our mission is to engage with communities and catalyze private, public, and philanthropic partnerships to remedy opportunity gaps in economic opportunity, education, health, and housing in Utah.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of Utah Inc and the most unlike its peers is Sherry Black Foundation Fka Sherry Black Education 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 27 years old; the field is 11. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 29% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.8% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
550 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. 550 of the 643 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 The Other Side Academy ↗
- Who funds SHELTER THE HOMELESS INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF SWITCHPOINT INC ↗
- Who funds DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds TABITHA'S WAY ↗
- Who funds INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds University Impact ↗
- Who funds HUNTSMAN CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ELE LEMBRA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA UTAH ↗
- Who funds Realize Impact ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds UTAH IMPACT PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds THE CATSKILL MOUNTAIN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds Central Indiana Community Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR HUMANITARIAN OUTREACH AND INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE ↗
- Who funds ROWLAND HALL-ST MARK'S SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
- Who funds BALLET WEST ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds Christ is the Light of the World - Tree of Life Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S CENTER UTAH ↗
- Who funds UTAH SYMPHONY & OPERA ↗
- Who funds LOVE & HOPE INC LOVE & HOPE INC ↗
- Who funds TRANSCEND INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds Comunidades Unidas ↗
- Who funds Wasatch Homeless Health Care ↗
- Who funds CE Events LLC ↗
- Who funds POSITIVE IQ FOUNDATION ↗
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: George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · Sorenson Legacy Foundation · Larry H Miller and Gail Miller Family Foundation · Lawrence & Janet Dee Foundation · Ihc Health Services Inc · McCarthey Family Foundation · Pacificorp Foundation Aka Pacific Power Foundation Aka Rocky Mountain Power Foundati · Marriner S Eccles Foundation · Kennecott Utah Copper Visitors Center Charitable Foundation · The Miner Foundation · Intermountain Community Care Foundation Inc · David Kelby Johnson Memorial 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 The Community Foundation of Utah 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- VertueLab — 12% of income from government
- Shriners Hospitals for Children — 0% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Community Foundation of Utah?
Find your warmest path to The Community Foundation of Utah 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.