Skip to content
The Wolcott Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Wolcott Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$95k
Granted FY2024still arriving
22
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$297kCommunity Improvement$91kHealth$72kCrime & Legal$52kFood & Nutrition$52kYouth Development$47kEducation$37kHuman Services$35kOther$0
02FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES$5,000
CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COLORADO$5,000
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY$5,000
PEOPLE AND POLLINATORS ACTON NETWORK$5,000
COLORADO IMMIGRANT JUSTICE FUND$5,000
GRAND VALLEY CITIZENS ALLIANCE$5,000
YOUTH EMPOWERMENT GROUP$5,000
GROUNDWORK$5,000
WESTERN SLOPE CONSERVATION CENTER$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
SHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE$5,000
SAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL$5,000
SOUTHWEST CO CANYONS ALLIANCE$5,000
FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS$5,000
PIKES PEAK JUSTICE AND PRO BONO CENTER$5,000
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MOVIMIENTO: $4k → 11%Brigits Bounty Community Resources: $1k → 9%FOSTER SOURCE: $5k → 10%Hispanic Affairs Project: $1k → 12%GREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $2k → 12%Street's Hope: $5k → 12%Street's Hope: $1k → 12%COLORADO IMMIGRANT JUSTICE FUND: $5k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 9% of The Wolcott Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 99% of the giving stays in CO; by stated purpose, 91%.

The Wolcott Family Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$567k · 39 repeat orgs$162k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +59% since the first grant, against +53% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

39
41

Total granted

$567k
$132k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+59%
+53%

Still filing today

51%
39%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentHuman ServicesFood & NutritionCrime & LegalEducationArts & CultureOther
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

  • NC
    NFRIA-WSERC CONSERVATION CENTER INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $38k · revenue +59%
  • HC
    HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES
    7× · 2018–2024 · $34k · revenue +9%
  • SM
    SHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE
    7× · 2018–2024 · $34k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • EC
    EL COMITE DE LONGMONTgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +45%
  • DL
    Dont Look Back Center Incgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +108%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $5k
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
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
2
Colorado Ag Water Alliance

Works with farmers and ranchers to address water issues around the state impacting agriculture.

Environment
3
San Juan Citizens Alliance

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.

Environment
4
Sagrada Botanical Gardens

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…

Environment
5
Urban Symbiosis

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.

Human Services
6
UpRoot Colorado

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 & Nutrition
7
Confluence Center of Colorado Inc

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…

Environment
8
350 Colorado Action

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…

Environment
9
Living Rivers

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…

Environment
10
Santa Fe Forest Coalition

Educate the public on forest conservation issues in New Mexico

Environment
11
San Juan Resource Conservation and Development Council Inc

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.

Environment
12
Great Basin Resource Watch

Natural resource protection: Protected communities and the environment from the negative impacts of mineral development; provided support to communities impacted by mining

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sheep Mountain Alliance; 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.
05the grantee network

44 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. 44 of the 87 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
22
Early backer (in before they grew)
41/44
Grantees still filing
33/44
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Grand Valley Citizens Alliance: $40,000 · OtherGrand Valley Citizens AllianceNFRIA-WSERC CONSERVATION CENTER INC: $38,000 · OtherNFRIA-WSERC CONSERVATION CENTER INCHIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES: $34,000 · OtherHIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATESIndividual grant recipient: $28,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COLORADO: $20,000 · OtherHERBAL GARDENS WELLNESS: $20,000 · OtherYOUTH EMPOWERMENT GROUP: $18,000 · OtherSOUTHWEST CO CANYONS ALLIANCE: $17,000 · Other+48 more: $237,645 · Other+48 moreSHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE: $34,000 · EnvironmentSHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCEWILD CONNECTIONS INC: $28,150 · EnvironmentWILD CONNECTIONS INC350 COLORADO: $21,000 · Environment350 COLORADOCITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY: $20,000 · EnvironmentCITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY …PEOPLE AND POLLINATORS ACTION NETWORK: $12,500 · EnvironmentPEOPLE AND POLLINATORS …SAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentSAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYST…Earth Guardians: $10,000 · EnvironmentEarth GuardiansCONEJOS COUNTY CLEAN WATER INC: $5,500 · Environment+3 more: $9,500 · Environment+3 moreSPROUT CITY FARMS: $11,500 · Food & NutritionFundamental Needs Inc: $10,000 · Food & NutritionVINDEKET: $5,000 · Food & NutritionSustained Farms: $3,000 · Food & NutritionFOOD TO POWER (FKA COLORADO SPRINGS FOOD RESCUE): $2,500 · Food & NutritionStreets Hope: $6,000 · Human ServicesFOSTER SOURCE: $5,000 · Human ServicesCOLORADO IMMIGRANT JUSTICE FUND: $5,000 · Human ServicesLichen Health: $4,000 · Human ServicesGREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $3,050 · Human ServicesFORT COLLINS COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: $3,000 · Human ServicesBRIGITS BOUNTY COMMUNITY RESOURCES: $1,000 · Human ServicesHISPANIC AFFAIRS PROJECT: $1,000 · Human ServicesJovial Concepts: $12,500 · Crime & LegalForge Evolution: $8,000 · Crime & LegalPIKES PEAK JUSTICE & PRO BONO CENTER: $5,000 · Crime & LegalTHE LEARNING COUNCIL: $17,000 · EducationField Academy: $5,000 · EducationMOSQUITO RANGE HERITAGE INITIATIVE: $15,000 · Arts & CultureIDEA Stages: $2,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$453,145Environment$150,650Food & Nutrition$32,000Human Services$28,050Crime & Legal$25,500Education$22,000Arts & Culture$17,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNFRIA-WSERC CONSERVATION CENTER INC: $38,000 over 8y, 1.6% of budgetHIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES: $34,000 over 7y, 1.9% of budgetSHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE: $34,000 over 7y, 8.1% of budgetWILD CONNECTIONS INC: $28,150 over 8y, 5.0% of budget350 COLORADO: $21,000 over 5y, 3.9% of budgetCITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY: $20,000 over 4y, 5.7% of budgetTHE LEARNING COUNCIL: $17,000 over 4y, 11% of budgetMOSQUITO RANGE HERITAGE INITIATIVE: $15,000 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetPEOPLE AND POLLINATORS ACTION NETWORK: $12,500 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetJovial Concepts: $12,500 over 3y, 3.7% of budgetSPROUT CITY FARMS: $11,500 over 4y, 2.7% of budgetFundamental Needs Inc: $10,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetSAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL INC: $10,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetEarth Guardians: $10,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetPHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY INC: $10,000 over 2y, 8.7% of budgetTRAILHEAD INSTITUTE: $8,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetForge Evolution: $8,000 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetStreets Hope: $6,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetCONEJOS COUNTY CLEAN WATER INC: $5,500 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetEL COMITE DE LONGMONT: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetDont Look Back Center Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetGroundwork: $5,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetSEEKING COMMON GROUND INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetVINDEKET: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetFOSTER SOURCE: $5,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetPIKES PEAK JUSTICE & PRO BONO CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetField Academy: $5,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetCOLORADO IMMIGRANT JUSTICE FUND: $5,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetTHE INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS: $4,645 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetTHE KIVA CENTER: $4,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetLichen Health: $4,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetGREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS: $3,050 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSustained Farms: $3,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetFORT COLLINS COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: $3,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetFOOD TO POWER (FKA COLORADO SPRINGS FOOD RESCUE): $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetIDEA Stages: $2,000 over 1y, 46% of budgetTHE COLORADO NONPROFIT DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGRINDING STONE COLLECTIVE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • 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 PEOPLE AND POLLINATORS ACTION NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds Jovial Concepts ↗
  • 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 EL COMITE DE LONGMONT ↗
  • Who funds Dont Look Back Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds Groundwork ↗

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…PatagoniaorgThe Denver FoundationThe Colorado Health F…Maki FoundationThe New-Land Foundati…The Women's Foundatio…Chinook Fund IncWestern Conservation …The Colorado TrustMile High United Way …The Wilderness Society
Colorado Gives FoundationCO48.9× affinity28 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%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 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.

    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 87 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Wolcott Family’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