Skip to content
Bozeman Deaconess Health Services at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Bozeman Deaconess Health Services

To improve community health and quality of life.

$519k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$286k
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.

Health$2.9MPhilanthropy$213kHuman Services$192kYouth Development$120kRecreation & Sports$105kEducation$20kEnvironment$18kFood & Nutrition$16kOther$0
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $471,715, the rows itemized in this filing. The $518,715 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $47,000 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 · FY2024

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $126k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
  • $250k+1 grant · $286k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$210M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MT State University Foundation$285,715
Cancer Support Comununity MT$60,000
Thrive$30,000
Community Health Partners$26,000
Bridgercare$20,000
Wellness in Action$20,000
Bridger Ski Foundation$10,000
Human Resource Development Council of District IX (HRDC)$10,000
Gallatin Valley Land Trust$10,000
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:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Wellness in Action: $20k → 10%Wellness in Action: $20k → 10%Human Resource Development Council of District IX (HRDC): $55k → 10%Help Center: $50k → 10%Human Resource Development Council of District IX (HRDC): $10k → 10%Human Resource Development Council of District IX (HRDC): $10k → 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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.4M · 15 repeat orgs$188k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +51% since the first grant, against +28% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
10

Total granted

$3.4M
$188k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+51%
+28%

Still filing today

93%
90%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesPhilanthropyHealthEducationRecreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • MS
    Montana State University Foundation Inc
    5× · 2019–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +257%
  • CS
    CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF MONTANA
    6× · 2017–2024 · $217k · revenue +51%
  • GG
    GREATER GALLATIN UNITED WAY INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $213k · revenue +85%

Funded once

  • BL
    BOZEMAN LIBRARY FRIENDS AND FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +10%
  • HC
    HELP CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +29%
  • FE
    FORT ELLIS FIRE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -79%
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
Scenic Montana Trails
—
2
Montana Healthcare Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Gallatin Watershed Council Inc

The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative watershed stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.

Environment
4
Montana Pediatric Cancer Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Montana Shares Inc

A partnership of nonprofit groups devoted to improving the quality of life throughout Montana.

—
6
Big Sky Resort Association Inc

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.

—
7
Montana State Parks Foundation

The montana state parks foundation raises private support to enhance the visitors experience and build advocates for montanas state parks and recreation heritage.

Recreation & Sports
8
Montana Hospital Association

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.

—
9
Center for Mental Health

The center for mental health partners with people and communities to produce exceptional mental health and substance abuse services.

—
10
Rural Idaho & Mountain West Primary Care
Health
11
Montanas Outdoor Legacy Foundation

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.

Environment
12
Teton Valley Mental Health Coalition Inc

Our mission is to promote mental wellness in teton valley by providing outreach, education, and connection to services.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Support Community of Montana; 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.
04the grantee network

24 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. 24 of the 26 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/24
Grantees still filing
18/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Montana State University Foundation Inc: $1,428,575 · EducationMontana State University Foundation IncWESTERN MONTANA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER: $900,000 · OtherWESTERN MONTANA MENTAL HEALTH CENTERCOMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS INC: $151,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS INCTHRIVE INC: $82,500 · OtherTHRIVE INCHAVEN: $67,900 · OtherBOZEMAN LIBRARY FRIENDS AND FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Other+10 more: $162,140 · Other+10 moreGREATER GALLATIN UNITED WAY INC: $212,535 · PhilanthropyONE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $27,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $5,000 · PhilanthropyCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF MONTANA: $216,900 · HealthSUFFER OUT LOUD: $10,000 · HealthHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $74,500 · Human ServicesHELP CENTER INC: $50,000 · Human ServicesWELLNESS IN ACTION: $40,000 · Human ServicesBRIDGER SKI FOUNDATION: $79,950 · Recreation & SportsFORT ELLIS FIRE FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Education$1,428,575Other$1,413,540Philanthropy$244,535Health$226,900Human Services$164,500Recreation & Sports$79,950Public Safety & Disaster$25,000

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 budgetMontana State University Foundation Inc: $1,428,575 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetWESTERN MONTANA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER: $900,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF MONTANA: $216,900 over 6y, 6.5% of budgetGREATER GALLATIN UNITED WAY INC: $212,535 over 7y, 3.4% of budgetCOMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS INC: $151,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetTHRIVE INC: $82,500 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetBRIDGER SKI FOUNDATION: $79,950 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $74,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetHAVEN: $67,900 over 4y, 2.4% of budgetBOZEMAN LIBRARY FRIENDS AND FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetHELP CENTER INC: $50,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetBRIDGERCARE: $42,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetWELLNESS IN ACTION: $40,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetONE VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $27,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetMONTANA MINDFULNESS PROJECT: $20,000 over 2y, 7.3% of budgetGALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST: $17,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetGallatin Valley Farm to School: $16,000 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetHEART OF THE VALLEY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMOUNTAIN TIME ARTS: $10,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetSUFFER OUT LOUD: $10,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetNATIONAL INTERSCHOLASTIC CYCLING ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBOZEMAN SYMPHONY SOCIETY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetEagle Mount: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

One Valley Community …Yellowstone Club Comm…Greater Gallatin Unit…Montana Community Fou…First Security Bank F…Gilhousen Family Foun…Dennis & Phyllis Wash…The Arthur M Blank Fa…First Interstate Banc…Town Pump Charitable …Otto Bremer TrustThe Rieschel Foundati…
One Valley Community FoundationMT36.9× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Bozeman Deaconess Health Services funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bozeman Deaconess Health Services. 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
    5report 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 26 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 Bozeman Deaconess Health Services’ 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