Skip to content

· Public charity

Action for Eastern Montana

ACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA is committed to strengthening and enhancing the quality of life within the communities we serve by promoting education, advocacy and dignity for achieving independence.

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$124k
Largest
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 2025.

Human Services$11M
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $270k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $869k
$59,506
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROOSEVELT COUNTY$124,392
RICHLAND COUNTY$114,711
ROSEBUD COUNTY$103,138
VALLEY COUNTY$88,261
CUSTER COUNTY$83,732
DAWSON COUNTY$82,010
SHERIDAN COUNTY$80,668
FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX$78,568
PHILLIPS COUNTY$59,506
FALLON COUNTY$53,726
DANIELS COUNTY$47,344
PRAIRIE COUNTY$42,005
WIBAUX COUNTY$41,827
GARFIELD COUNTY$41,190
POWDER RIVER COUNTY$39,593
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 74% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%RICHLAND COUNTY: $152k → 10%CUSTER COUNTY: $217k → 11%VALLEY COUNTY: $149k → 12%DAWSON COUNTY: $127k → 12%SHERIDAN COUNTY: $128k → 13%ROSEBUD COUNTY: $170k → 18%ROOSEVELT COUNTY: $174k → 24%RICHLAND COUNTY: $142k → 10%CUSTER COUNTY: $168k → 11%VALLEY COUNTY: $104k → 12%DAWSON COUNTY: $123k → 12%SHERIDAN COUNTY: $115k → 13%ROSEBUD COUNTY: $145k → 18%ROOSEVELT COUNTY: $130k → 24%RICHLAND COUNTY: $125k → 10%CUSTER COUNTY: $157k → 11%VALLEY COUNTY: $103k → 12%DAWSON COUNTY: $119k → 12%ROSEBUD COUNTY: $131k → 18%ROOSEVELT COUNTY: $128k → 24%RICHLAND COUNTY: $115k → 10%CUSTER COUNTY: $126k → 11%VALLEY COUNTY: $102k → 12%DAWSON COUNTY: $109k → 12%ROSEBUD COUNTY: $118k → 18%ROOSEVELT COUNTY: $124k → 24%RICHLAND COUNTY: $105k → 10%CUSTER COUNTY: $126k → 11%VALLEY COUNTY: $98k → 12%DAWSON COUNTY: $108k → 12%ROSEBUD COUNTY: $103k → 18%ROOSEVELT COUNTY: $123k → 24%RICHLAND COUNTY: $101k → 10%CUSTER COUNTY: $103k → 11%VALLEY COUNTY: $94k → 12%DAWSON COUNTY: $106k → 12%ROOSEVELT COUNTY: $118k → 24%RICHLAND COUNTY: $99k → 10%CUSTER COUNTY: $93k → 11%DAWSON COUNTY: $101k → 12%ROOSEVELT COUNTY: $99k → 24%RICHLAND COUNTY: $94k → 10%ROOSEVELT COUNTY: $91k → 24%FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX: $164k → 24%FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX: $121k → 24%FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX: $121k → 24%FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX: $118k → 24%FORT PECK ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX: $104k → 24%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11M · 19 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

19 repeat relationships: 17 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
0

Total granted

$11M
$0

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M
  • RC
    ROOSEVELT COUNTY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M
  • RC
    RICHLAND COUNTY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.0M

Funded once

    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
    04the grantee network

    0 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. 0 of the 19 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)
    0
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    0/0
    Grantees still filing
    0/0
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    CUSTER COUNTY: $1,161,892 · OtherCUSTER COUNTYROOSEVELT COUNTY: $1,061,084 · OtherROOSEVELT COUNTYRICHLAND COUNTY: $1,022,300 · OtherRICHLAND COUNTYEL CENTRO MOTEL: $962,890 · OtherEL CENTRO MOTELROSEBUD COUNTY: $961,355 · OtherROSEBUD COUNTYVALLEY COUNTY: $916,842 · OtherVALLEY COUNTYFORT PECK TRIBES: $914,441 · OtherFORT PECK TRIBESSHERIDAN COUNTY: $738,028 · OtherSHERIDAN COUNTYPHILLIPS COUNTY: $589,362 · OtherFALLON COUNTY: $401,647 · Other+9 more: $2,502,119 · Other+9 more
    Other$11,231,960

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

    25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

    Center for Technology and Civic LifeIL16.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Center for Technology and Civic Life · Montana Community Foundation 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Action for Eastern Montana?

    Find your warmest path to Action for Eastern Montana 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 19 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 Action for Eastern Montana’s filings →

    More from the funding graph