· Public charity
Bozeman Deaconess Health Services
To improve community health and quality of life.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 9 grants below total $471,715 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $518,715 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $47,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k7 grants · $126k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
- $250k+1 grant · $286k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MT State University Foundation | $285,715 |
| Cancer Support Comununity MT | $60,000 |
| Thrive | $30,000 |
| Community Health Partners | $26,000 |
| Wellness in Action | $20,000 |
| Bridgercare | $20,000 |
| Human Resource Development Council of District IX (HRDC) | $10,000 |
| Bridger Ski Foundation | $10,000 |
| Gallatin Valley Land Trust | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY22–24, $165k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +51% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- MSMontana State University Foundation Inc5× · 2019–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +257%
- CSCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF MONTANA6× · 2017–2024 · $217k · revenue +51%
- GGGREATER GALLATIN UNITED WAY INC7× · 2017–2023 · $213k · revenue +85%
Funded once
- BLBOZEMAN LIBRARY FRIENDS AND FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +10%
- HCHELP CENTER INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +29%
- FEFORT ELLIS FIRE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -79%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative watershed stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.
A partnership of nonprofit groups devoted to improving the quality of life throughout Montana.
Serving as the voice of business, the big sky chamber of commerce champions a healthy economy and works collaboratively with community stakeholders as a conveyor and a catalyst to improve the overall quality of life in the region.
The montana state parks foundation raises private support to enhance the visitors experience and build advocates for montanas state parks and recreation heritage.
Montana hospital association is the principal advocate for the interests of members in their efforts to improve the health status of the communities they serve.
The center for mental health partners with people and communities to produce exceptional mental health and substance abuse services.
To collectively serve as a catalyst for engagement and bonding of people to our wildlife and public lands in montana through a sense of place, education, access, research and stewardship.
Our mission is to promote mental wellness in teton valley by providing outreach, education, and connection to services.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Support Community of Montana and the most unlike its peers is National Interscholastic Cycling Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
24 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 24 of the 26 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Montana State University Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds WESTERN MONTANA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF MONTANA ↗
- Who funds GREATER GALLATIN UNITED WAY INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS INC ↗
- Who funds THRIVE INC ↗
- Who funds BRIDGER SKI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC ↗
- Who funds HAVEN ↗
- Who funds BOZEMAN LIBRARY FRIENDS AND FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HELP CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds BRIDGERCARE ↗
- Who funds WELLNESS IN ACTION ↗
- Who funds ONE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FORT ELLIS FIRE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MONTANA MINDFULNESS PROJECT ↗
- Who funds GALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds Gallatin Valley Farm to School ↗
- Who funds HEART OF THE VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds BOZEMAN SYMPHONY SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL INTERSCHOLASTIC CYCLING ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds SUFFER OUT LOUD ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN TIME ARTS ↗
- Who funds Eagle Mount ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: One Valley Community Foundation · Yellowstone Club Community Foundation · Greater Gallatin United Way Inc · Montana Community Foundation Inc · First Security Bank Foundation · Gilhousen Family Foundation · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · The Arthur M Blank Family Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · The Rieschel Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Bozeman Deaconess Health Services funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.