Skip to content
Blackfoot Challenge Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Blackfoot Challenge Inc

The mission of The Blackfoot Challenge is to coordinate efforts that will conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural way of life in the Blackfoot Watershed for present and future generations.

$30k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$22k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2024.

Environment$357kCommunity Improvement$25kRecreation & Sports$22k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $22,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $30,100 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $8,100 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.
$22,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$6.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Monroe Property Company LLC$22,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%LINCOLN HERITAGE ALLIANCE: $25k → 9%Monroe Property Company LLC: $22k → 9%RUBY VALLEY CD: $15k → 10%GRANITE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $10k → 11%CENTENNIAL VALLEY ASSOCIATION: $15k → 12%WATERSHED RESTORATION COALITI: $12k → 16%BIG HOLE WATERSHED: $15k → 16%CONFED SALISH &KOOTENAI TRIB: $15k → 18%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $10k → 7%SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $15k → 9%RUBY VALLEY CD: $8k → 10%GRANITE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $9k → 11%CENTENNIAL VALLEY ASSOCIATION: $9k → 12%WATERSHED RESTORATION COALITI: $10k → 16%BIG HOLE WATERSHED: $10k → 16%CONFED SALISH &KOOTENAI TRIB: $9k → 18%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $10k → 7%SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $11k → 9%MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS: $15k → 10%GRANITE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $9k → 11%CENTENNIAL VALLEY ASSOCIATION: $9k → 12%WATERSHED RESTORATION COALITI: $8k → 16%BIG HOLE WATERSHED: $9k → 16%CONFED SALISH &KOOTENAI TRIB: $8k → 18%SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $9k → 9%MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS: $10k → 10%BIG BLACKFOOT-TROUT UNLIMITED: $79k → 16%HEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATI: $10k → 9%MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS: $8k → 10%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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$248k · 8 repeat orgs$136k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$248k
$114k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+195%

Still filing today

75%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $22k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’24
EnvironmentAnimalsOther
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

  • SV
    SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS
    3× · 2018–2020 · $35k · revenue +35%
  • BH
    BIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC
    3× · 2018–2020 · $34k · revenue +28%
  • MV
    MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP
    3× · 2018–2020 · $33k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • BB
    BIG BLACKFOOT CHAPTER OF TROUT UNLIMITED INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $79k · revenue +195%
  • LH
    LINCOLN HERITAGE ALLIANCE
    one grant, 2017 · $25k
  • HO
    HEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATIVEgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +176%
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
Blackfoot Challenge Inc

The mission of The Blackfoot Challenge is to coordinate efforts that will conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural way of life in the Blackfoot Watershed for present and future generations.

Environment
2
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
3
Wood River Land Trust Co

The wood river land trust's mission is to protect and sustain the treasured landscapes and life-giving waters of the wood river valley and to inspire love for this special place for generations to come.

Environment
4
Big Thompson Watershed Coalition

Vision: a healthy and resilient big thompson watershed benefitting fish, wildlife, and the people itserves through collaborative efforts for current and future generations. mission: working with others to take action that protects and…

Environment
5
Gallatin Wildlife Association

Promote research and actions to save wildlife.

Animals
6
Upper Missouri Waterkeeper Inc

Upper missouri waterkeeper protects fishable, swimmable, drinkable water throughout the 25,000 square miles of montana's upper missouri river basin of montana. to accomplish this mission we actively engage with citizens, stakeholders and…

Education
7
Teton Regional Land Trust Inc

The mission of the teton regional land trust is to conserve working farms and ranches, fish and wildlife habitat, and scenic open spaces in eastern idaho for this and future generations.

Environment
8
The Grand Canyon Trust Inc

The mission of the grand canyon trust is to safeguard the wonders of the grand canyon and the colorado plateau, while supporting the rights of its native peoples.

Environment
9
Yaak Valley Forest Council

Working for a wild yaak through science, education, and bold action.

Environment
10
Upper Colorado River Alliance
Environment
11
Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.

Animals
12
Jackson Hole Wildlife Foundation

Jackson hole wildlife foundation advances wildlife conservation driven by science, collaboration, and a community of volunteers.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greater Yellowstone Coalition; the most unlike its peers is Centennial Valley Association 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

9 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. 9 of the 13 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $35,000 · EnvironmentSWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONSBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC: $34,450 · EnvironmentBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INCMADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP: $33,150 · EnvironmentMADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUPCentennial Valley Association Inc: $33,000 · EnvironmentCentennial Valley Association IncWATERSHED RESTORATION COALITION FOR THE: $30,000 · EnvironmentWATERSHED RESTORATION COALITION FOR THEGREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION: $22,500 · EnvironmentGREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITIONHEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATIVE: $10,000 · EnvironmentCONFED SALISH &KOOTENAI TRIB: $32,100 · OtherCONFED SALISH &KOOTENAI TRIBGRANITE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $28,000 · OtherGRANITE CONSERVATION DISTRICTLINCOLN HERITAGE ALLIANCE: $25,000 · OtherLINCOLN HERITAGE ALLIANCEMonroe Property Company LLC: $22,000 · OtherMonroe Property Company LLCTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $20,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYBIG BLACKFOOT CHAPTER OF TROUT UNLIMITED INC: $78,963 · AnimalsBIG BLACKFOOT CHAPTER …
Environment$198,100Other$127,100Animals$78,963

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 budgetBIG BLACKFOOT CHAPTER OF TROUT UNLIMITED INC: $78,963 over 1y, 12% of budgetSWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $35,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC: $34,450 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetMADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP: $33,150 over 3y, 7.3% of budgetCentennial Valley Association Inc: $33,000 over 3y, 7.8% of budgetWATERSHED RESTORATION COALITION FOR THE: $30,000 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetGREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION: $22,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATIVE: $10,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

Heart of the Rockies …PatagoniaorgThe Vital Ground Foun…The Nature ConservancyAmazonsmile Foundation
Heart of the Rockies InitiativeMT17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Heart of the Rockies Initiative · Patagoniaorg · The Vital Ground Foundation Inc · The Nature Conservancy · 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 Blackfoot Challenge Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Blackfoot Challenge Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.

    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 13 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Blackfoot Challenge’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