Skip to content
Headwaters Resource Conservation and Development Area Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Headwaters Resource Conservation and Development Area Inc

To meet the needs of the people, achieve the objectives and goals of the area plan/comprehensive economic strategy; a community or group approach in solving cultural, social, and economic problems is encouraged.

$95k
Granted FY2017
8
Grants FY2017
1
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2017 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2017

  • Under $10k4 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $78k
$11,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$6.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND$40,026
BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND$13,432
BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND$12,682
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE$11,500
BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND$7,808
BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND$4,385
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE$3,674
BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND$1,180
02The need
02

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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–17) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND: $40k → 9%DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: $12k → 10%BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND: $13k → 9%DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: $4k → 10%BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND: $13k → 9%BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND: $8k → 9%BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND: $4k → 9%BIG SKY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND: $1k → 9%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 field
03the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2017.

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 2017, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 2 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
0/0
Grantees still filing
0/0
Grew since first funded

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

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 2 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2017, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Headwaters Resource Conservation and Development Area’s 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