Skip to content

· Private foundation

Weckbaugh Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$40k
Granted FY2020
20
Grants FY2020
2
States reached
$18k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Weckbaugh Foundation’s FY2022 grant dollars went to The Denver Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2022 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year Weckbaugh Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 14 organizations, $40k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

16
’17
17
’18
14
’19
14
’20
1
’21
0
’22

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Philanthropy$964kEducation$61kHealth$20kHuman Services$18kReligion$9kAnimals$8kYouth Development$8kEmployment$4kOther$0
02FY2020 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k19 grants · $22k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $18k
$1,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HAVERN CENTER$18,170
LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR$2,500
REGIS JESUIT HIGH SCHOOL$2,500
MULLEN HIGH SCHOOL$2,000
Individual grant recipient$1,800
HOME HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS$1,500
MOUNT SAINT VINCENT$1,500
MAXFUND$1,500
DOMINICAN HOME HEALTH AGENCY$1,500
PRAYING HANDS RANCH$1,000
LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETY$1,000
FATHER WOODY'S HAVEN OF HOPE$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
FRECKLES AND TOMCAT RESCUE$500
BAYAUD ENTERPRISES$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 (FY17–20, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%SAFEHOUSE DENVER: $500 → 12%SAFEHOUSE DENVER: $500 → 12%SAFEHOUSE DENVER: $500 → 12%SAFEHOUSE DENVER: $500 → 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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$141k · 24 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

24 repeat relationships: 20 still active in FY2020, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call). Read against FY2020, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
5

Total granted

$141k
$2k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+48%
+136%

Still filing today

54%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21
HealthPhilanthropyEducationAnimalsEmploymentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • TM
    THE MAXFUND INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $6k · revenue +77%
  • DH
    DOMINICAN HOME HEALTH AGENCY INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $6k · revenue +66%
  • NY
    Nathan Yip Foundation
    2× · 2018–2019 · $5k · revenue +82%

Funded once

  • DM
    Divine Mercy Supportive Care Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
  • DD
    DENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUEgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue +254%
  • MH
    MILE HIGH 360graduated
    one grant, 2018 · $265 · revenue +136%
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
Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative Inc

Mission: leading and advancing collaboration to end homelessness in our region. vision: dedicated to everyone in the metro region having a safe, stable place to call home. values: committed to core values that bring people home: -…

Housing & Shelter
2
Colorado Health Institute
Health
3
Mount St Vincent Home Inc

As part of intermountain health, mount saint vincent partners with children and families to heal beyond trauma into a healthy and hopeful future.

—
4
Mental Health Center of Denver

We empower people to overcome barriers and achieve lasting well-being through collaborative behavioral health care and comprehensive support.

Health
5
The Colorado Health Foundation
Health
6
Holy Rosary Healthcare

We reveal and foster god's healing love by improving the health ofthe people and communities we serve, especially those who are poorand vulnerable.

Health
7
Hospice of Metro Denver Inc

To encircle those facing advanced illness with unprecedented levels of comfort, compassion, and expertise.

Human Services
8
Quality Health Network

To optimize the whole-person health of the more than 400,000 residents of the western colorado medical trade area qhn serves. qhn's health information exchange (hie) improves the efficiency, timeliness, and quality of the healthcare…

Health
9
Urban Peak Denver

Urban peak helps youth experiencing homelessness and youth at risk of becoming homeless overcome real life challenges by providing essential services and a supportive community, empowering them to become self-sufficient adults.

Housing & Shelter
10
Center for Improving Value in Health Care

To equip partners and communities in colorado and across the nation with the resources, services and unbiased data needed to improve health and health care. we help communities, organizations and individuals identify opportunities to…

Health
11
Honorhealth

Honorhealth's mission is to improve the health and well-being of those we serve.

Health
12
Rocky Mountain Human Services

We embrace the power of community to support individuals and families in creating their future. we do this by: simplifying access, celebrating individuality, and bridging communities.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Denver Dumb Friends League; the most unlike its peers is Home Health Care Professionals Inc. 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

17 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. 17 of the 31 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
9/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE DENVER FOUNDATION: $958,724 · PhilanthropyTHE DENVER FOUNDATION+3 more: $10,045 · PhilanthropyREGIS JESUIT HIGH SCHOOL: $10,650 · OtherMULLEN HIGH SCHOOL: $9,000 · OtherHOME HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS INC: $8,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $7,750 · OtherJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT: $7,500 · OtherMOUNT SAINT VINCENT: $6,000 · OtherPraying Hands Ranches Inc: $3,500 · OtherARRUPE JESUIT HIGH SCHOOL: $3,000 · OtherST LOUIS CATHOLIC CHURCH: $2,500 · Other+7 more: $10,100 · OtherHAVERN CENTER INC: $30,655 · Education+1 more: $1,000 · EducationLITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED: $15,619 · HealthDOMINICAN HOME HEALTH AGENCY INC: $5,950 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,500 · Health+1 more: $100 · HealthTHE MAXFUND INC: $6,000 · AnimalsDENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE: $500 · AnimalsBAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC: $3,500 · EmploymentSAFEHOUSE DENVER INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesMILE HIGH 360: $265 · Recreation & Sports
Philanthropy$968,769Other$68,000Education$31,655Health$23,169Animals$6,500Employment$3,500Human Services$2,000Recreation & Sports$265

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 budgetTHE DENVER FOUNDATION: $958,724 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetHAVERN CENTER INC: $30,655 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetLITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED: $15,619 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetHOME HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS INC: $8,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE MAXFUND INC: $6,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDOMINICAN HOME HEALTH AGENCY INC: $5,950 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetHAVEN OF HOPE: $5,200 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetPraying Hands Ranches Inc: $3,500 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetBAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC: $3,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSAFEHOUSE DENVER INC: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCreighton University: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetDENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTENTH MOUNTAIN DIVISION FOUNDATION INC: $345 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMILE HIGH 360: $265 over 1y, 0.0% 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 THE DENVER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HAVERN CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED ↗
  • Who funds HOME HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MAXFUND INC ↗
  • Who funds DOMINICAN HOME HEALTH AGENCY INC ↗
  • Who funds HAVEN OF HOPE ↗
  • Who funds Nathan Yip Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Praying Hands Ranches Inc ↗
  • Who funds BAYAUD ENTERPRISES INC ↗
  • Who funds SAFEHOUSE DENVER INC ↗
  • Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
  • Who funds Creighton University ↗
  • Who funds DENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds TENTH MOUNTAIN DIVISION FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds MILE HIGH 360 ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY ↗

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.

The Denver FoundationCO24.5× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Jk Mullen Foundation · Heider Family Foundation Co Susan H Coleman · The Catholic Foundation No Colorado · Daniels Fund · Rose Community Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · John & Florence Fortune Foundation · The Martin Family Foundation · Nathan B & Florence R Burt Foundation

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%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 · 0–60%
    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 Weckbaugh Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Weckbaugh 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 31 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Weckbaugh’s filings →

    More from the funding graph