Skip to content
Lee and Donna Metcalf Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Lee and Donna Metcalf Charitable Trust

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$36k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Arts & Culture$261kEducation$158kEnvironment$88kRecreation & Sports$44kPublic Benefit$30kHealth$15k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
$8,452
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$20,000
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION$8,452
FISH WILDLIFE AND PARKS FOUNDATION$7,260
02The need
03

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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 14% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%PRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST: $50k → 9%MONTANA PUBLIC RADIO: $8k → 9%FILM INDEPENDENT: $13k → 14%DOC SOCIETY: $20k → 20%COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $21k → 11%HOLTER MUSEUM OF ART: $30k → 9%PROVIDENCE MONTANA HEALTH FOUNDATION: $15k → 9%HOLTER MUSEUM OF ART: $30k → 9%UPPER SEVEN: $20k → 9%MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $17k → 9%UPPER SEVEN: $10k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$459k · 7 repeat orgs$137k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
7

Total granted

$459k
$137k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+90%

Still filing today

43%
86%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentArts & CultureEducationPhilanthropyHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $158k · revenue -24%
  • MD
    MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH WILDLIFE AND PARKS
    5× · 2017–2022 · $100k
  • MF
    MONTANA FREE PRESS
    2× · 2020–2023 · $85k · revenue +26%

Funded once

  • PP
    PRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUSTgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $50k · revenue +179%
  • CM
    COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2022 · $21k
  • DS
    DOC SOCIETY INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $20k · revenue +57%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The Montana Land Reliance

The mission of the montana land reliance (mlr) is to partner with landowners to provide permanent protection for private lands that are significant for agricultural production, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space.

Environment
2
Wild Montana Action Fund

Wild montana action fund builds the political power necessary for protecting and conserving public lands and wild places across the state by elevating the voices of montanans who cherish our outdoor way of life.

Environment
3
Montana Chamber of Commerce

To create and sustain an optimal business climate, business prosperity and a strong montana economy through advocacy, education and collaboration, working to provide an empowered and educated workforce, reduce business growth obstacles,…

—
4
Flathead Land Trust

Flathead land trust is dedicated to the conservation of northwest montana's land and water legacy through voluntary agreements with private land owners. flt's primary program service is private land conservation through voluntary…

Environment
5
Montana Association of Conservation Districts

To heighten the public's awareness of conservation districts and their activities as well as to promote soil and water conservation.

—
6
Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment
7
Montanas Outdoor Legacy Foundation

To collectively serve as a catalyst for engagement and bonding of people to our wildlife and public lands in montana through a sense of place, education, access, research and stewardship.

Environment
8
Montana Wildlife Federation

The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.

Animals
9
Montana State Parks Foundation

The montana state parks foundation raises private support to enhance the visitors experience and build advocates for montanas state parks and recreation heritage.

Recreation & Sports
10
Colorado Museum of Natural History

Be a catalyst! Ignite our community's passion for nature and science.

Arts & Culture
11
Confluence Public Health Alliance

None

Health
12
Grand Teton Association

The mission of the association is to inspire "deeper connection, better understanding, and enduring support for our public lands."

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The University of Montana Foundation; the most unlike its peers is St Patrick Hospital Foundation. 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

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 14 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH WILDLIFE AND PARKS: $100,096 · OtherMONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH WILDLI…Individual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCOLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $21,375 · OtherCOLORADO MESA UNIVERSITYFISH WILDLIFE AND PARKS FOUNDATION: $14,378 · OtherFISH WILDLIFE AND PARKS FOUNDATIO…Individual grant recipient: $11,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $158,451 · EducationTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUN…MONTANA FREE PRESS: $85,000 · Arts & CultureMONTANA FREE PRESSHOLTER MUSEUM OF ART: $60,000 · Arts & CultureHOLTER MUSEUM OF ARTFILM INDEPENDENT: $12,700 · Arts & CultureFILM INDEPENDENTPRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST: $50,000 · EnvironmentPRICKLY PEAR…MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $16,834 · EnvironmentMONTANA WILD…+1 more: $1,300 · EnvironmentDOC SOCIETY INC: $20,000 · PhilanthropyST PATRICK HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $15,000 · Health
Other$177,349Education$158,451Arts & Culture$157,700Environment$68,134Philanthropy$20,000Health$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $158,451 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetMONTANA FREE PRESS: $85,000 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetHOLTER MUSEUM OF ART: $60,000 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetPRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST: $50,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetDOC SOCIETY INC: $20,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetMONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $16,834 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetST PATRICK HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFILM INDEPENDENT: $12,700 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES INC: $1,300 over 1y, 0.6% of 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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Kendeda FundMontana Community Fou…First Interstate Banc…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Kendeda FundDE13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Kendeda Fund · Montana Community Foundation Inc · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Lee and Donna Metcalf Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lee and Donna Metcalf Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    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 14 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Lee and Donna Metcalf’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