· Private foundation
The Wolcott Family Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES | $5,000 |
| CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COLORADO | $5,000 |
| PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY | $5,000 |
| SOUTHWEST CO CANYONS ALLIANCE | $5,000 |
| FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS | $5,000 |
| FIELD ACADEMY | $5,000 |
| GROUNDWORK | $5,000 |
| WESTERN SLOPE CONSERVATION CENTER | $5,000 |
| SHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE | $5,000 |
| SAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL | $5,000 |
| PEOPLE AND POLLINATORS ACTON NETWORK | $5,000 |
| COLORADO IMMIGRANT JUSTICE FUND | $5,000 |
| YOUTH EMPOWERMENT GROUP | $5,000 |
| GRAND VALLEY CITIZENS ALLIANCE | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $24k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 9% of The Wolcott Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 99% of the giving stays in CO; read by stated purpose it is 91% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +59% since the first grant, against +53% for the ones you funded once.
39 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2024, 24 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, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k 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
- NCNFRIA-WSERC CONSERVATION CENTER INC8× · 2017–2024 · $38k · revenue +59%
- HCHIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES7× · 2018–2024 · $34k · revenue +9%
- SMSHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE7× · 2018–2024 · $34k · revenue +34%
Funded once
- VVINDEKETgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue +640%
- C4COMPANEROS 4 CORNERS IMMIGRANT RESOURCE CENTERone grant, 2021 · $5k
- ATAlternatives to Violence Projectone grant, 2020 · $5k
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.
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…
Works with farmers and ranchers to address water issues around the state impacting agriculture.
The San Juan Citizens Alliance advocates for clean air, pure water, and healthy lands - the foundations of resilient communities, ecosystems and economies in the San Juan Basin.
The mission is to reconnect sustainable food and natural medicine practices to the community through the development of community land providing edible and medicinal gardens, organic farm to table food, education and regenerative land…
Urban Symbiosis is dedicated to promoting sustainable urban agriculture and food sovereignty in urban communities through the development and support of community-driven urban farms and educational programs.
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…
The Center brings together mission-focused, nonpolitical organizations working at the confluence of land and water science, education, and stewardship to magnify our impact and ensure the longevity of our natural resources for future…
350 Colorado Action is a public education and welfare organization focused on educating the public and decision-makers about the issue of climate change, and to encourage the transition away from polluting fossil fuels to a clean renewable…
Living rivers promotes river restoration through mobilization by articulating conservation and alternative management strategies to the public. seeking to revive the natural habitat and spirit of rivers by undoing the extensive damage done…
Educate the public on forest conservation issues in New Mexico
San juan resource conservation and development council, inc.'s mission is to protect and improve the natural, cultural, historic and economic resources of the eight county area of southwest colorado.
Natural resource protection: Protected communities and the environment from the negative impacts of mineral development; provided support to communities impacted by mining
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sheep Mountain Alliance and the most unlike its peers is Mosquito Range Heritage Initiative. 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 19 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) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 6% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
44 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. 44 of the 87 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 NFRIA-WSERC CONSERVATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES ↗
- Who funds SHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds WILD CONNECTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds 350 COLORADO ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds THE LEARNING COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds MOSQUITO RANGE HERITAGE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Jovial Concepts ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE AND POLLINATORS ACTION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds SPROUT CITY FARMS ↗
- Who funds Fundamental Needs Inc ↗
- Who funds SAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds Earth Guardians ↗
- Who funds PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY INC ↗
- Who funds TRAILHEAD INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Forge Evolution ↗
- Who funds Streets Hope ↗
- Who funds CONEJOS COUNTY CLEAN WATER INC ↗
- Who funds VINDEKET ↗
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 · Patagoniaorg · The Denver Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Maki Foundation · The New-Land Foundation Inc · The Women's Foundation of Colorado Inc · Chinook Fund Inc · Western Conservation Foundation · The Colorado Trust · Mile High United Way Inc · The Wilderness Society
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 Wolcott Family 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.
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 Wolcott Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Wolcott Family 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.