· 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2023–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 14 grants below total $262,779 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $451,427 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $188,648 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 $10k4 grants · $23k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $119k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $121k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
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 (FY23–24, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, 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 +11% since the first grant, against -18% 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k 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
- MLMONTANA LAND TO HAND2× · 2023–2024 · $96k · revenue +54%
- CFCLARK FORK RIVER MARKET INC2× · 2023–2024 · $45k · revenue +34% · 25% of their budget
- SPST PETER'S HEALTH FOUNDATION2× · 2023–2024 · $27k · revenue +66%
Funded once
- WMWestern MT Growers Co-opone grant, 2023 · $11k
- BDBozeman Deaconess Foundationone grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue -18%
- 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.
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 collaborate with people across the state on local, regenerative, and culturally specific food systems that aim to protect, cultivate, distribute, and increase access to indigenous foods through the exchange of knowledge, skills, and…
Enhancing lives and building communities by providing transportation and nutrition services.
Dedicated to empowering community partners to achieve health care quality goals.
In 2024, the livingston food resource center (lfrc) continued its mission of addressing food insecurity and promoting community well-being across park county. through innovative programs, partnerships with local producers, and adapting to…
To improve health by providing high quality, compassionate and personalized care.
The older American act intends that the area agency on aging shall be the leader relative to all aging issuers on behalf of all older persons in the planning and service area. This means that the area agency shall proactively carry out,…
To build an abundant, resilient, and valued local food system that supports our landscape, our farmers, ranchers, and food artisans, and our community.
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.
12 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. 12 of the 17 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 LAND TO HAND ↗
- Who funds CLARK FORK RIVER MARKET INC ↗
- Who funds HELENA FOOD SHARE INC ↗
- Who funds ST PETER'S HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ADULT RESOURCE ALLIANCE OF YELLOWSTONE COUNTY ↗
- Who funds RAVALLI COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
- Who funds WESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE ↗
- Who funds LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds PARTNERSHIP HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FAST BLACKFEET ↗
- Who funds Bozeman Deaconess Foundation ↗
- Who funds ALL NATIONS HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
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: First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Montana Healthcare Foundation · Headwaters Health Foundation of Western Montana · Otto Bremer Trust · Montana Food Bank Network Inc · The High Stakes Foundation · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Share Our Strength · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 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.
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 Community Food and Agriculture Coalition?
Find your warmest path to Community Food and Agriculture Coalition 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.