How much does Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation give?

Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation reported 28 itemized grants totaling $539,508, out of $584,468 in total grant expense reported on the return in its FY2025 IRS filing. It funded between 24 and 28 organizations a year over FY2019 to FY2024.

What does Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation fund?

By grant dollars over FY2019 to FY2025, its largest causes are Education (30%), Arts & Culture (14%), Public Safety & Disaster (14%).

Who are Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation's largest grantees?

By total granted over FY2019 to FY2025: Education Legacy Fund ($527k), Custer County Search and Rescue Inc ($170k), San Isabel Land Protection Trust ($170k).

Does Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation fund new organizations?

In FY2024, 14% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.

Which funders back the same organizations as Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include El Pomar Foundation, 6s Foundation, Colorado Gives Foundation.

Where is Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation based?

Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation is based in CO.

Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation

Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation at a glance Also receives grants: funding profile →

· Community foundation

Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation

Community grants and support of community based programs and services.

$584k

Granted FY2025still arriving

Grants FY2025still arriving

States reached

$64k

Largest

01What it funds

0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Education$805kArts & Culture$384kPublic Safety & Disaster$370kEnvironment$359kAnimals$253kRecreation & Sports$147kHealth$134kFood & Nutrition$74kOther$0

02FY2025 · 28 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured

The 28 grants below total $539,508, the rows itemized in this filing. The $584,468 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $44,960 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 $10k8 grants · $52k
$10k–50k19 grants · $424k
$50k–250k1 grant · $64k

$15,150

Median grant

States reached

$2.5M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
THE EDUCATION LEGACY FUND	$63,834
WET MTN FIRE PROTECTION DIST	$42,602
WESTCLIFFE CTR FOR THE PERFORM	$41,798
CUSTER CTY SCHOOLS	$37,743
COLORADO OPEN LANDS	$33,653
CUSTER CTY SEARCH AND RESCUE	$32,166
HIGH CNTRY RECYCLINGSUSTAINABLE WA	$23,781
WEST CUSTER CTY LIBRARY DISTRICT	$23,073
CUSTER 2020 DBA ALTITUDE COM FITNES	$22,994
WET MOUNTAIN WILDLIFE REHAB	$20,304
MISSION WOLF	$20,136
VALLEY PARK RECREATION AND YOUTH	$18,051
DARK SKIES	$16,020
WET MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING	$15,150
CC COMMUNITY SHARING CENTER	$14,829

02The need

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 (FY19–25, $80k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 5%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$2.5M · 31 repeat orgs$161k to everyone else

31 repeat relationships: 27 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$2.5M

$156k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%

+57%

Still filing today

42%

41%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Arts & CultureAnimalsEducationHuman ServicesEnvironmentPublic BenefitOther

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

CC
CUSTER COUNTY SEARCH AND RESCUE INC
7× · 2018–2025 · $170k · revenue +28% · 41% of their budget
SI
SAN ISABEL LAND PROTECTION TRUST
7× · 2018–2025 · $170k · revenue +54%
CM
CRYSTAL MTN CTR FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
7× · 2018–2025 · $139k · revenue +48% · 27% of their budget

Funded once

SD
SANGRE DE CRISTO SCHOOLgraduated
one grant, 2019 · $34k · revenue +88%
CC
CUSTER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
one grant, 2019 · $14k
WC
WEST CUSTER CTY LIBRARY DIST
2× · 2018–2019 · $12k

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.

Wolfe Ranch Rescue

Animals

Mountain Tails Wildlife Rehab

Wildlife rehabitation

Animals

Rocky Mountain Veterans' Hunts & Excursions Inc

Recreation & Sports

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

Highlands Ranch Backcountry Conservation and Education Fund

Philanthropy

Windwalker Ridge Mustang Sanctuary Inc

Currently housing and caring for 84 displaced wild mustang horses

Animals

Mesilla Valley Search and Rescue Canine Horse and Ground Team

Search and rescue missions

Health

Critter Crusaders Wildlife Rehabili

Wildlife rehabilitation

Animals

Platte Ranch Forever Home Sanctuary

Animals

Shepherd Mountain Horse Rescue Inc

Numerous starving or sick animal acquired fed and nourished back to good health and rehomed

Animals

Colorado Outdoor Learning School

Outdoor Education

Recreation & Sports

Mustangs Forever Inc

Animals

How this is measured

The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Veterans Rescue Ranch Ltd; the most unlike its peers is Education Legacy Fund. 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

23 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. 23 of the 49 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

21/23

Grantees still filing

18/23

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Other$1,325,869Education$583,911Animals$266,905Arts & Culture$194,036Environment$115,385Public Benefit$108,256Community Improvement$85,528

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

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.

El Pomar FoundationCO20.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: El Pomar Foundation · 6s Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Amazonsmile 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 Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

2report 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

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 Wet Mtn Valley Community Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Wet Mtn Valley Community 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.

Play a game based on Wet Mtn Valley’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