Skip to content
Upswing Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

Upswing Foundation

UPSWING FOUNDATION's mission is to catapult dreams and connect people, specifically by (I) providing first-rate resources & opportunities to underserved youth.

$334k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$158k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

International$1.3MPhilanthropy$200kRecreation & Sports$186kHealth$50kHuman Services$22kYouth Development$10kEducation$8k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $325,631, the rows itemized in this filing. The $333,972 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $8,341 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $273k
$35,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$26M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOPE HAVEN CHARITABLE TRUST$158,131
ACE SCHOLARSHIPS$115,000
FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES$35,000
RESTORE INTERNATIONAL$10,000
IRRESISTABLE CHURCH NETWORK$7,500
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 (FY24–24, $17k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%CLOTHES TO KIDS: $17k → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 3 repeat orgs$354k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against +11% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
9

Total granted

$1.7M
$221k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+11%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 59% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $133k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Youth DevelopmentPhilanthropyRecreation & SportsInternationalHealthEducationOther
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

  • HH
    HOPE HAVEN CHARITABLE TRUST
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +20%
  • CC
    COVERED CORPORATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $200k · revenue +18%
  • FO
    FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES
    3× · 2023–2025 · $90k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • AB
    Athletics & Beyond
    one grant, 2023 · $54k · revenue -15%
  • BC
    BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -16%
  • PF
    POOLS FOR KIDS INC
    one grant, 2023 · $32k · revenue -95%
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
The Girls Athletic Leadership School of Denver

The Girls Athletic Leadership School, Denver (GALS) is the only public, all-girls charter school in the State of Colorado. GALS' mission is to empower young women to succeed academically, lead confidently, live boldly, and thrive…

Education
2
Chance Sports

The mission of chance sports is to provide young athletes with the financial support to access competitive club sports, and to learn leadership and teambuilding skills that will benefit them on and off the athletic field.

Recreation & Sports
3
Colorado Dream Foundation

We partner with youth and their families as they successfully navigate school, college, and career by providing a holistic academic, social, and emotional program from elementary school through college, along with post-secondary…

—
4
Childsafe Colorado Inc

Mission: our mission is to break the cycle and heal the childhood trauma resulting from abuse and neglect with specialized treatment, education and community outreach. we believe in a comprehensive, community-based approach to the problem…

Crime & Legal
5
Colorado Christian Academy

Colorado christian academy provides an innovative christ-centered education that prioritizes academic achievements and individual development of the whole child. in relationship with parents, we will build healthy foundations that result…

Education
6
Colorado Diamonds

Youth Sports Activities

Youth Development
7
Colorado Wellness Center for Girls
—
8
Impact Water Foundation

To make safe drinking water available to as many students as possible through scalable and lasting solutions, ensuring every student can learn and thrive with safe water. see schedule o.

Human Services
9
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

The mission of the global alliance for improved nutrition (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of…

Food & Nutrition
10
Hope's Promise Inc

To strengthen families through ethical, christ-centered foster care, adoption, and global orphan care.

Human Services
11
Colorado Youth Sports Club

Colorado youth sports club operates as an organization that exists to promote the discovery of jesus through sports. we bring christian leaders, athletes, and the communities they serve together through the universal language of sports,…

—
12
Alexander Dawson Foundation

The mission of the alexander dawson foundation is to establish, operate and maintain an educational organization that will provide students with the highest quality education, nurture future leaders, prepare young adults to excel in…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Gold Crown Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Athletics & Beyond. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 15 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HOPE HAVEN CHARITABLE TRUST: $1,417,629 · InternationalHOPE HAVEN CHARITABLE TRUSTCOVERED CORPORATION: $200,000 · PhilanthropyCOVERED CORP…GOLD CROWN FOUNDATION: $20,000 · PhilanthropyGOLD CROWN F…ALLIANCE FOR CHOICE IN EDUCATION: $115,000 · EducationFELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES: $90,000 · Youth DevelopmentGIRLS INCORPORATED OF METRO DENVER: $10,100 · Youth DevelopmentAthletics & Beyond: $54,000 · Recreation & SportsPOOLS FOR KIDS INC: $32,000 · Recreation & SportsBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $50,000 · HealthCOLORADO JR BUFFS: $25,000 · OtherJEFFCO PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $8,000 · OtherNORTH POINT MINISTRIES INC: $7,500 · OtherLOVE DOES: $5,181 · OtherCLOTHES TO KIDS OF DENVER INC: $17,000 · OtherRESTORE INTERNATIONAL DBA LOVE DOES: $10,000 · Other
International$1,417,629Philanthropy$220,000Education$115,000Youth Development$100,100Recreation & Sports$86,000Health$50,000Other$72,681

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHOPE HAVEN CHARITABLE TRUST: $1,417,629 over 4y, 24% of budgetCOVERED CORPORATION: $200,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetALLIANCE FOR CHOICE IN EDUCATION: $115,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES: $90,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAthletics & Beyond: $54,000 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPOOLS FOR KIDS INC: $32,000 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetGOLD CROWN FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCLOTHES TO KIDS OF DENVER INC: $17,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetGIRLS INCORPORATED OF METRO DENVER: $10,100 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

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…The Denver FoundationDenver Broncos Founda…Libertygives Foundati…Boettcher FoundationDaniels FundRose Community Founda…The Colorado Health F…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…
Colorado Gives FoundationCO20.8× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Colorado Gives Foundation · The Denver Foundation · Denver Broncos Foundation · Libertygives Foundation · Boettcher Foundation · Daniels Fund · Rose Community Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Upswing Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Upswing 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 15 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Upswing’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