· Public charity
District XI Human Resource Council Inc
Working to identify and expand resources to provide opportunities for low income households in housing, health, education, training, and employment for missoula, mineral, and ravalli counties.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $166,789 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,975,429 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,808,640 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $130k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CITY OF MISSOULA | $129,654 |
| HAVEN HOUSE | $17,607 |
| MISSOULA COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS | $12,000 |
| MISSOULA FOOD BANK | $7,528 |
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 (FY17–24, $244k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +38% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 10 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 FY2025, 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
- PCPOVERELLO CENTER INC8× · 2017–2024 · $747k · revenue +122%
- MFMISSOULA FOOD BANK & COMMUNITY CENTER8× · 2017–2025 · $124k · revenue +38%
- SCSAPPHIRE COMMUNITY HEALTH INC5× · 2017–2021 · $90k · revenue +177%
Funded once
- HCHRC COTTAGES INCone grant, 2024 · $174k · revenue 0%
- UGUNION GOSPEL MISSION OF MISSOULAone grant, 2022 · $39k · revenue +18%
- MHMONTANA HRDC DIRECTORS ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2024 · $27k · revenue -4%
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.
Habitat for humanity of missoula is a nonprofit, ecumenical, christian housing ministry dedicated to the elimination of poverty housing in our community and throughout the world.
Our mission is to end hunger in the valley county, montana area through food acquisition and distribution, education, and advocacy. our vision is a montana free from hunger where everyone has equal access to nutritious food.
The purpose of the montana continuum of care coalition is to end homelessness in montana through effective leadership and collaboration. (to make homelessness in montana rare, brief and non-recurring)
A nonprofit ecumenical christian housing ministry dedicated to eleminating substandard housing and homelessness worldwide and to making adequate, affordable shelter a matter of conscience and action.
For more than four decades, haven has been bozemans trusted community partner in providing safe shelter, support (including a 24-hour support line and legal advocacy), and counseling for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, sex…
To provide affordable housing to low-income families.
Partnership health center ensures that accessible, comprehensive primary healthcare is provided to the medically underserved population in our region, through a partnership of community resources.
The organization was established in 1975 serving southwestern montana. we are a private, not-for-profit community action organization. we exist to instill hope, develop resources, design solutions and change lives. we envision a place…
To assist victims of housing discrimination in the state of montana.
To enhance community vitality by inspiring community giving and strengthening nonprofits
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Poverello Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Supporters of Abuse Free Environments Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 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 POVERELLO CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds YWCA MISSOULA ↗
- Who funds HRC COTTAGES INC ↗
- Who funds MISSOULA FOOD BANK & COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds SAPPHIRE COMMUNITY HEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds Literacy Volunteers of America Bitterroot Inc ↗
- Who funds YOUTH HOMES ↗
- Who funds MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds SUPPORTERS OF ABUSE FREE ENVIRONMENTS INC ↗
- Who funds UNION GOSPEL MISSION OF MISSOULA ↗
- Who funds MONTANA HRDC DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds HAVEN HOUSE ↗
- Who funds MISSOULA INTERFAITH COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN HOME MONTANA 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: Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Headwaters Health Foundation of Western Montana · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Gianforte Family Charitable Trust · Otto Bremer Trust · United Way of Missoula County · Providence Health & Services - Montana · The Llewellyn Foundation · Cross Charitable Foundation Attn John R Clark · Missoula Community Foundation · Sample Foundation Inc · Montana Healthcare 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 District XI Human Resource Council Inc 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 District XI Human Resource Council Inc?
Find your warmest path to District XI Human Resource Council Inc 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.