· Public charity
Core Electric Cooperative
The following mission statement guides the cooperative in fulfilling its tax exempt purpose of providing quality and reliable electric service to our member-consumers: improving lives and communities through choice and innovation.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2023–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 22 grants below total $217,100 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $524,646 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $307,546 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k11 grants · $78k
- $10k–50k11 grants · $139k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| DOUGLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $23,000 |
| DOUGLAS COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
| CASTLE ROCK ADVENTIST HOSPITAL FND | $14,000 |
| ENERGY OUTREACH COLORADO | $12,000 |
| DOUGLAS COUNTY FAIR FOUNDATION | $12,000 |
| HELP AND HOPE CENTER | $11,525 |
| OUTDOOR LAB FOUNDATION | $11,275 |
| ARAPAHOE COUNTY YOUTH LIVESTOCK AUCTION | $10,500 |
| THE ASPEN EFFECT | $10,000 |
| ELBERT COUNTY FAIR BOARD | $10,000 |
| PARKER TASK FORCE | $10,000 |
| ROTARY CLUB OF PARKER FOUNDATION | $9,800 |
| CCV ROTARY CLUB OF PARKER FOUNDATION | $9,000 |
| CHEROKEE RANCH AND CASTLE FOUNDATION | $8,500 |
| TRI ARTS PROJECT | $7,500 |
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 (FY23–24, $73k) land where the poverty rate runs at 4%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 11% 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.
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.
12 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 7 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, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $68k 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
- DCDOUGLAS COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION2× · 2023–2024 · $47k · revenue +18%
- EOENERGY OUTREACH COLORADO2× · 2023–2024 · $27k · revenue +19%
- TAThe Aspen Effect Inc2× · 2023–2024 · $22k · revenue +64%
Funded once
- TOTown of Parkerone grant, 2023 · $14k
- CLCONIFER LOBOS UNIFIED BOOSTERSone grant, 2023 · $13k · revenue -35%
- PTParker Task Force for Human Servicesgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $11k · revenue +34%
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.
UpRoot Colorado works to increase nutrition security in Colorado by harvesting and redistributing surplus agricultural crops while supporting the resilience of farmers and creating opportunities for volunteers to learn about and connect…
Food bank of the rockies ignites the power of community to nourish people facing food insecurity.
The Denver Rustlers helps student exhibitors earn money for college through the purchase of their showcased livestock at the Colorado State Fair Junior Livestock Sale making sure the young exhbitors get a fair price for their animals,…
Provide opportunities for all to thrive by offering free food resources to communities.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Castle Rock Community Inter Church Task Force and the most unlike its peers is The Aspen Effect Inc. 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 22 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 28% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 16% 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.
24 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. 24 of the 28 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
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 DOUGLAS COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Douglas County Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds Rocky Mountain Adventist Healthcare Foundation ↗
- Who funds ENERGY OUTREACH COLORADO ↗
- Who funds PARKER SENIOR CENTER ↗
- Who funds The Aspen Effect Inc ↗
- Who funds DOUGLAS COUNTY FAIR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROTARY CLUB OF PARKER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OUTDOOR LAB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY YOUTH LIVESTOCK AUCTION ↗
- Who funds CHERRY CREEK VALLEY ROTARY CLUB OF PARKER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT-ROCKY MOUNTAIN INC ↗
- Who funds SECOR ↗
- Who funds CONIFER LOBOS UNIFIED BOOSTERS ↗
- Who funds CASTLE ROCK COMMUNITY INTER CHURCH TASK FORCE ↗
- Who funds CASTLE ROCK SENIOR CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Parker Task Force for Human Services ↗
- Who funds Cherokee Ranch & Castle ↗
- Who funds LifeBridge ↗
- Who funds WELLSPRING COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds TRI ARTS PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Colorado Agricultural Leadership Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF METRO DENVER INC ↗
- Who funds HELP THE NEEDY DBA HTN - HOPE LIVES HERE ↗
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: Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Western Union Foundation · Douglas County Community Foundation · Libertygives Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · George and Louise Thornton Charitable Foundation · The Vance R and Colleen H Andrus Family Foundation Aka the Indigo Oak Fund · Portercare Adventist Health System · The Janus Henderson Foundation · El Pomar Foundation · Lumen Clarke M Williams 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 Core Electric Cooperative 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.
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.