How much did THE DENVER FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

Philanthropy$112MEducation$111MHealth$71MHuman Services$63MArts & Culture$33MEnvironment$22MFood & Nutrition$22MCommunity Improvement$21MYouth Development$18MOther$213M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

wwftrlainvestigationgun violencecomposersconcerndear jack

2019

building conveningcompassgovernance boardresident engagementcourtsorthodoxjameson

2020

landscape cohortcovid responseaphasiahunger reliefrei internalcovid hungerbehavioral heatlh

2021

made behalfsafety prioritiesbehalf lindalinda campbelllife-linehunger reliefmade recommendation

2023

alliances advocacyraising distributionchristianitystudent financialnatural conservationconservation protectionmuseums

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 1184 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k128 grants · $904k
$10k–50k629 grants · $13M
$50k–250k348 grants · $32M
$250k+79 grants · $86M

$26,500

Median grant

States reached

$1.3B

Total assets

Largest grants

NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST$25,000,000
PLENTIFUL$4,000,000
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION - DPS FOUNDATION$3,246,196
DENVER HEALTH FOUNDATION$2,650,879
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY$2,176,316
BARTON INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY ACTION$2,106,500
URBAN PEAK$2,028,660
COLORADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM FOUNDATION$2,010,129
NORTHEAST AMERICAN DIOCESE OF THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH$2,000,000
MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH DIOCESE OF SOUTH-WEST AMERICA$2,000,000
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL COLORADO FOUNDATION$1,691,233
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION$1,431,553
THE GATHERING PLACE$1,426,618
COBALT FOUNDATION$1,275,883
MORGAN STANLEY GLOBAL IMPACT FUNDING TRUST INC$1,239,085

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $42.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11% — the area typically sits at 10%. 68% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$616M · 1482 repeat orgs$69M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +54% since the first grant, against +53% for the ones you funded once.

1482 repeat relationships — 861 still active in FY2024, 621 since wound down; 130 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

1482

388

Total granted

$616M

$47M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%

+53%

Still filing today

86%

79%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $21M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationHuman ServicesHealthArts & CulturePhilanthropyEnvironmentOther

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

NP
NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST
3× · 2021–2024 · $26M · revenue +241%
DENVER HEALTH FOUNDATION
8× · 2017–2024 · $15M · revenue +168% · 43% of their budget
UO
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION GIFT AND RECORD PROCESSING
8× · 2017–2024 · $14M · revenue +40%

Funded once

DB
DENVER BRONCOS CHARITIES - DENVER BRONCOS FOUNDATIONgraduated
one grant, 2023 · $9.3M · revenue +637%
AC
AMALGAMATED CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INCgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $2.0M · revenue +156814%
AP
AGORA PARTNERSHIPS
one grant, 2017 · $1.5M · revenue +8% · 53% of their budget

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Aia Colorado

AIA Colorado,is the voice of the architecture profession in Colorado. Through advocacy, leadership development, education and resources for architects, the organization supports architecture professionals in designing a better world where…

—

Social Venture Partners Boulder

To harness the collective power of nonprofits and philanthropic changemakers to accelerate community impact.

Philanthropy

Healthier Colorado

Healthier colorado is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to raising the voices of coloradans in the public policy process to improve the health of our state's residents. we believe that every coloradan should have a fair…

Health

International School of Denver

To develop conscientious, self-confident, multilingual, and multicultural thinkers.

Education

Colorado Democracy Alliance

The Colorado Democracy Alliance is an organization committed to protecting democracy and expanding Colorados civic engagement ecosystem.

Civil Rights

Colorado Association of School

Empower colorado education leaders through advocacy, professional learning and networking to deliver on the promise of public education

—

Rocky Mountain Values

Rocky Mountain Values is a Colorado non-profit organization that is made up of real Coloradans fighting to make sure that we can all earn a good living and have a good life no matter our zip code.

—

Colorado Agricultural Leadership

To develop leaders that will become a strong, unified voice for agricultural issues.

Education

Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors

We create economic vitality through memorable visits to the wonders of Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak Region.

—

Colorado Digital Health

Prime health advances health justice, equity, access quality and cost through innovation, collaboration, and community building.

Health

Endeavor Colorado

Endeavor colorado is a not-for-profit leading the high-impact entrepreneurship movement in colorado to catalyze long-term economic growth by selecting, mentoring, and supporting the best high-impact entrepreneurs in our region. high-impact…

Community Improvement

Colorado Coalition Against

Advocates against sexual assault

Crime & Legal

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is George W Clayton Trust and the most unlike its peers is La Clinica Tepeyac. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 26 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%44/2,929

the rest of the field

12%

3,736/30,488

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.

05the grantee network

1764 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

147

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

709

Early backer (in before they grew)

1690/1764

Grantees still filing

1358/1764

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$273,343,995Philanthropy$111,746,911Education$110,540,125Health$70,763,528Human Services$63,112,843Arts & Culture$32,813,797Environment$22,175,884

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.

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.

Rose Community FoundationCO179.9× affinity515 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Rose Community Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Schlessman Foundation Inc · Caring for Colorado Foundation · Caring for Denver Foundation · Latino Community Foundation of Colorado · Caring for Colorado Centennial Fund · Rose Foundation · The Women's Foundation of Colorado Inc · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Children's Foundation · The Colorado Trust

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 organisation THE DENVER FOUNDATION 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: DENVER MOUNTAIN PARKS FOUNDATION.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~15 months of operating runway; revenue contracted over 8 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 202626404 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on DENVER MOUNTAIN PARKS FOUNDATION, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 15 months of cash on hand.
WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 99% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to The Denver Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Denver Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

More from the funding graph

The regranting layer

51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary

The DAF merry-go-round

$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds

Strange bedfellows

the named clusters of US funding

The camps

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

By state

where grant money is based, and what stays home

State money flows

the interactive map of money crossing state lines