Loading…
· Public charity
COMMUNITY FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COALITION
To develop and strengthen missoula county's food system, to promote sustainable agriculture, to build regional self-reliance and to assure all citizens equal access to healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate foods.
$451k
Granted FY2024
14
Grants
2
Communities
$67k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 47% of COMMUNITY FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COALITION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02FY2024 · 14 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k4 grants · $23k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $119k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $121k
$11,220
Median grant
2
States reached
$313k
Total assets
Largest grants
- Albertsons Companies$67,305
- Land to Hand$53,303
- Clark Fork River Market$25,867
- Missoula Farmers Market$22,407
- Helena Food Share$14,576
- St Peters Health Foundation$13,770
- Bar1 Wellness Amber Barone$11,220
- Partnership Health Center Inc$10,666
- FAST Blackfeet$10,333
- Adult Resource Alliance$10,123
- Ravalli County Council on Agi$6,390
- Lake County Council on Aging$5,826
- All Nations Health Center$5,500
- Western Sustainability Exchan$5,493
02The need
03
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY23–24, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9% — the area typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
86%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$385k · 10 repeat orgs$62k to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +75% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
10
3
Total granted
$385k
$25k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+75%
+1%
Still filing today
80%
33%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Food & NutritionEnvironmentHuman ServicesHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyHealthOther
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
- LTLand to Hand2× · 2023–2024 · $96k · revenue +313%
- CFClark Fork River Market2× · 2023–2024 · $45k · revenue +76% · 25% of their budget
- HFHelena Food Share2× · 2023–2024 · $29k · revenue +75%
Funded once
- WMWestern MT Growers Co-opone grant, 2023 · $11k
- BDBozeman Deaconess Foundationone grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue +1%
- MVMissoula Valley Winter Marketone grant, 2023 · $7k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
Regional West Health Services
Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.
Health
2
Routt County Council On Aging Inc
Our mission is to determine the needs of older adults in Routt County and to make every effort to meet those needs with appropriate action.
Human Services
3
Butte Emergency Food Bank
Provide food for individuals in need
—
4
Area Agency On Aging of Western
Through internal expertise, external partnerships, and advocacy, the area agency on aging of western michigan provides older adults, adults with disabilities, and their caregivers equitable access to services that promote independence and…
Human Services
5
Roaring Fork Valley Wildfire Collaborative
Our mission is to reduce wildfire risk by identifying, prioritizing, and implementing strategic cross-boundary plans and projects aimed at creating fire-resilient landscapes and fire-adapted communities.
Environment
6
Minot Commission On Aging Inc
The Agencys mission is to provide meals and health services to senior citizens in a seven county area.
Food & Nutrition
7
Western Reserve Area Agency On Aging
We provide choices for people to live independently in the place they want to call home.
Human Services
8
Prescott Farmers Market Inc
To support and expand local agriculture, cultivate a healthy community, and increase access to affordable local food.
Food & Nutrition
9
Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital
To improve community health and quality of life for residents and visitors of Southwest Montana.
Health
10
Brooke County Committee On Aging
Provide services to senior citizens.
Human Services
11
Seniorage Area Agency On Aging
A federally designated Area Agency on Aging whose mission is to bring independence enhancing supportive services to the 60+ population and their caregivers in our 17 county-wide service area.
Human Services
12
Missoula Area Agency On Aging Inc
To promote the independence, dignity and health of older adults and those who care for them.
Human Services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Land to Hand and the most unlike its peers is Western Sustainability Exchange. 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
12 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
12/12
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$211,972Food & Nutrition$134,382Environment$56,763Human Services$19,750Housing & Shelter$11,420Philanthropy$7,500Health$5,500
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 Land to Hand ↗
- Who funds Clark Fork River Market ↗
- Who funds Helena Food Share ↗
- Who funds St Peters Health Foundation ↗
- Who funds Adult Resource Alliance ↗
- Who funds Ravalli County Council on Agi ↗
- Who funds Western Sustainability Exchan ↗
- Who funds Lake County Council on Aging ↗
- Who funds Partnership Health Center Inc ↗
- Who funds FAST Blackfeet ↗
- Who funds Bozeman Deaconess Foundation ↗
- Who funds All Nations Health Center ↗
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.
Otto Bremer TrustMN13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Otto Bremer Trust · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation · 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 organisation COMMUNITY FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COALITION 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: Clark Fork River Market.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +76% since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 202933690 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on Clark Fork River Market, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 25% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Community Food and Agriculture Coalition?
Find your warmest path to Community Food and Agriculture Coalition through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines