How much did United Way of Mesa County Inc grant in FY2025?

Human Services$969kHealth$648kHousing & Shelter$350kPublic Safety & Disaster$187kYouth Development$185kFood & Nutrition$161kEducation$158kCrime & Legal$77kOther$0

02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

Under $10k5 grants · $40k
$10k–50k12 grants · $195k

$10,960

Median grant

States reached

$1.0M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
Individual grant recipient	$35,738
WESTERN SLOPE CENTER FOR CHILDREN	$25,395
HILLTOP COMMUNITY RESOURCES	$24,563
COMMUNITY FOOD BANK	$17,087
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE	$13,120
COUNSELING AND EDUCATION CENTER	$12,458
HARMONY ACRES EQUESTRIAN CENTER	$12,103
FOSTER ALUMNI MENTOR	$12,080
CLIFTON CHRISTIAN CHURCH	$10,960
HOPEWEST	$10,922
RIVERSIDE EDUCATIONAL CENTER	$10,261
CASA OF MESA COUNTY	$10,241
MUTUAL AID PARTNERS	$8,800
DISTRICT 51 FOUNDATION	$8,623
COLORADO YOUTH FOR CHANGE	$8,000

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 (FY17–25, $864k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. 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 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.

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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$3.0M · 28 repeat orgs$66k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +70% since the first grant, against -1% for the ones you funded once.

28 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$3.0M

$36k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%

-1%

Still filing today

89%

60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $30k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesHealthEducationHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentOther

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

GV
GRAND VALLEY CATHOLIC OUTREACH INC
8× · 2017–2024 · $397k · revenue +56%
SM
ST MARY'S HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
8× · 2017–2024 · $238k · revenue +44%
HH
HILLTOP HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION
9× · 2017–2025 · $237k · revenue +34%

Funded once

CW
COLORADO WEST REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH INC
one grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue -1%
CC
CHRIST CENTER
one grant, 2024 · $8k · revenue -14%
TS
THE SALVATION ARMY
one grant, 2017 · $7k

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.

United Way of Mesa County Inc

To meet human service needs

Philanthropy

Clinica Colorado

To provide equitable primary health care and resources to those with limited access across colorado, especially to those who are uninsured.

Health

Grand Junction Economic Partnership

The mission of the grand junction economic partnership is to generate high quality economic development by attracting business and quality jobs to mesa county, colorado.

Community Improvement

Joseph Center

The Joseph Center was created to support families in the intersection of homelessness and parenting. Our mission is to provide hope, establish stability, encourage resourcefulness and confer a sense of belonging to the greater community.

Human Services

Mesa Valley Community School Inc

The school creates opportunity for students to pursue personalized learning plans supported by the chartering district and private resources and technology. the school provides a learning community that includes family members, tutors,…

Religion

Mesilla Valley Community of Hope

Mesilla valley community of hope is a daytime service center for homeless people. it provides programs and intensive case management. it operates several housing programs to meet the people's emergency, transitional and permanent housing…

Human Services

Colorado Wellness Center for Girls

—

Samaritan Counseling Center

Centus is a top-tier provider of behavioral health services, education, and programs in metro Denver. We take pride in integrating every client's questions and concerns about their physical, behavioral, an spiritual self. We are champions…

Health

Mental Health Center of Boulder County Inc

Partnering to improve quality of life as a nonprofit organization dedicated to mental health and wellness. healing is our purpose, help is our promise, health is our passion.

—

Mesa County Land Conservancy Inc

To protect and enhance agricultural land, wildlife habitat and scenic lands in western colorado to benefit the community at large, enrich lives, and provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for future generations.

Environment

Christian Care Mesa Iii

Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve

Housing & Shelter

Metro Caring

Metro caring works with our community to meet people's immediate need for nutritious food while building a movement to address the root causes of hunger. (continued on sch o)metro caring, in partnership with our community, understands that…

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Grand Valley Catholic Outreach Inc and the most unlike its peers is District 51 Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 23 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 6% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2/35

the rest of the field

13%

95/721

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.

04the grantee network

33 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. 33 of the 36 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

31/33

Grantees still filing

25/33

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$1,054,165Human Services$863,815Health$500,659Housing & Shelter$251,838Public Safety & Disaster$204,509Education$126,376Crime & Legal$76,843

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.

Western Colorado Community Foundation IncCO65× affinity29 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Western Colorado Community Foundation Inc · Rocky Mountain Health Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · El Pomar Foundation · Bacon Family Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · International Association of Lions 3602 · The Goodwin Foundation · St Mary's Hospital & Medical Center Inc · The Colorado Health Foundation · Anschutz Family Foundation · Av Hunter Trust Incorporated

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 United Way of Mesa County Inc 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

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

14report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

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