· Community foundation
Central Montana Foundation
Educational and cultural improvement of central montana
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 36 grants below total $9,778,971 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $11,163,137 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,384,166 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
- Under $10k8 grants · $53k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $302k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $959k
- $250k+6 grants · $8.5M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CENTURY COMPANIES | $3,416,470 |
| CENTRAL MONTANA MEDICAL CENTER | $2,651,360 |
| WINIFRED SCHOOL DISTRICT | $919,534 |
| CARR CONSTRUCTION | $626,053 |
| GRIFFITH CONTRACTING | $593,226 |
| PETROLEUM COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER | $259,341 |
| SMITH CONSTRUCTION | $225,448 |
| JLW ARCHITECTURE | $207,768 |
| NB CONSTRUCTION | $178,380 |
| CRABTREE FENCING | $87,531 |
| PETROLEUM COUNTY | $70,000 |
| GREYN SCALE CO | $69,985 |
| AM ENGINEERING | $64,500 |
| STAHLY ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES | $54,907 |
| AGDATA SOURCE | $38,693 |
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 (FY21–24, $45k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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 +9% since the first grant, against -13% for the ones you funded once.
43 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 27 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.6M 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
- CMCentral Montana Medical Facilities Inc8× · 2017–2024 · $6.5M · revenue +94%
- PCPETROLEUM COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER INC5× · 2020–2024 · $4.3M · revenue +9% · 30% of their budget
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF LEWISTOWN7× · 2017–2024 · $183k · revenue +12%
Funded once
- MIMAKE IT HAPPEN INCone grant, 2017 · $341k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $296k
- OOTHERone grant, 2021 · $278k
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.
To preserve rural health care
To provide through local leadership economic, technical, and engineering information, and access to resources to improve theeconomies in the area.
Chamber of commerce
Promote and support 4-h club work in beaverhead county montana
Education, reearch, and trainng
Enhancement and development of trails on public lands in Beaverhead County
Promote agriculture and industry.
Rural fire protection and safety services
The Mission of the Belgrade Senior Center is to promote friendship and provide nutritional, social, recreational, educational, health and fitness, and information services for individuals age 50 and older in the Belgrade and surrounding…
Conduct a community fair and rodeo.
To provide access to the performing arts of all ages through quality entertainment, education, and cultural enrichment programs.
The organization's purpose is to improve the economic, social and cultural status of montana's urban native americans by promoting and creating job opportunities and providing education assistance
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lewistown Redbirds Baseball Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lewistown Art Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 15 years old; the field is 22. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 10% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 7% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
21 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 21 of the 106 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 Central Montana Medical Facilities Inc ↗
- Who funds PETROLEUM COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FERGUS COUNTY DISASTER RELIEF FUND ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL MONTANA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LEWISTOWN SOCCER CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF LEWISTOWN ↗
- Who funds LEWISTOWN ART CENTER ↗
- Who funds WINNETT ACES INC ↗
- Who funds BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS 456 ↗
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: Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · The Homestead Foundation Inc · Treacy Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Central Montana Foundation 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Central Montana Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Central Montana 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.