Skip to content
Montana Casagal Association at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Montana Casagal Association

The montana casa/gal association supports and promotes local casa/gal programs in providing court appointed volunteer advocacy so every abused or neglected child in montana can be safe, have a permanent home and the opportunity to thrive.

$213k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Crime & Legal$610kHuman Services$330k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $206,290, the rows itemized in this filing. The $212,703 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $6,413 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $143k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$23,453
Median grant
1
States reached
$348k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CASA OF BUTTE SILVER BOW$50,000
CASA OF YELLOWSTONE COUNTY$41,558
CASA OF LAKE & SANDERS COUNTI$28,549
CASA-CAN$28,540
EASTERN MONTANA CASAGAL ASSO$23,453
CASA OF MISSOULA$10,465
CASA FOR KIDS OF FLATHEAD COU$10,409
CASA OF SOUTHWEST MONTANA$7,215
CASA OF LINCOLN COUNTY$6,101
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:

Its human-services grants (FY24–25, $180k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 64% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CASA FOR KIDS OF FLATHEAD COU: $55k → 11%CASA OF SOUTHWEST MONTANA: $36k → 14%CASA OF LAKE & SANDERS COUNTI: $43k → 18%CASA FOR KIDS OF FLATHEAD COU: $10k → 11%CASA OF SOUTHWEST MONTANA: $7k → 14%CASA OF LAKE & SANDERS COUNTI: $29k → 18%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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$827k · 9 repeat orgs$113k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue 0% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
2

Total granted

$827k
$63k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
-8%

Still filing today

89%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesCrime & LegalCivil RightsYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • YC
    YELLOWSTONE CASA INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $152k · revenue +20%
  • CO
    CASA OF CASCADE COUNTY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $115k · revenue +22% · 31% of their budget
  • CO
    CASA OF LAKE & SANDERS COUNTIES
    2× · 2024–2025 · $72k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • CO
    CASA OF HILL COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • FJ
    Fifth Judicial District Voice for Children Inc
    one grant, 2024 · $13k · revenue -8%
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
Casa of Natrona County

To provide the court with objective information regarding the status of children involved in abuse or neglect cases. Duties of the appointed advocate would include gathering information, developing recommendations, and providing written…

Human Services
2
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Milam County
—
3
Casa of Tipton County

Child Advocacy Services

Crime & Legal
4
Casa of Johnson County Inc

Recruit and train community volunteers to speak out for abused and neglected children in court proceedings so that they can be permanently placed in a safe, nuturing enviroment as quickly as possible.

Crime & Legal
5
Court Appointed Special Advocate of Humboldt

To provide all abused and neglected children with a voice in the court process.

Civil Rights
6
Court Appointed Special Advocates Casa of Liberty/Chambers Counties

None

Human Services
7
Mineral County Casa Program

Court appointed special advocate

Crime & Legal
8
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Cook County

CASA of Cook County's vision is to protect abused and neglected children by providing them in court, a safe and permanent home, and an opportunity to grow, learn and thrive.

Crime & Legal
9
Lincoln County Casa

The organization advocates, promotes, and supports court-appointed volunteer advocacy for abused and neglected children, striving to secure a permanent and safe home for each child.

Crime & Legal
10
Casa of the Rolling Plains

Casa is a program to advocate for abused and neglected children in the legal and foster system.

Crime & Legal
11
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Jefferson County

Casa is an organization that provides one-to-one court advocacy to abused, neglected, or abdandoned children who are dependents of the juvenile court. casa recruits, trains, and superises adult volunteers.

Civil Rights
12
First Judicial District Casa Program Inc

The purpose of the first judicial district casa program is to recruit, screen, train and supervise community volunteers who are appointed by the court to serve as guardians ad litem for children found to be under the purview of the idaho…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Casagal Association; the most unlike its peers is Fifth Judicial District Voice for Children Inc. 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 12 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LOCAL MT CASA PROGRAMS: $149,604 · OtherLOCAL MT CASA PROGRAMSCASA OF CASCADE COUNTY: $115,326 · OtherCASA OF CASCADE COUNTYCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF MISSOULA: $50,844 · OtherCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF MISSOULACASA OF HILL COUNTY INC: $50,171 · OtherCASA OF HILL COUNTY INCCASA-GAL OF BUTTE SILVER BOW INC: $50,000 · OtherCASA-GAL OF BUTTE SILVER BOW INCCASA OF LAKE & SANDERS COUNTIES: $71,765 · Human ServicesCASA OF LAKE & SANDER…CASA FOR KIDS INC: $64,994 · Human ServicesCASA FOR KIDS INCMONTANA CASAGAL ASSOCIATION: $43,031 · Human ServicesMONTANA CASAGAL ASSOC…YELLOWSTONE CASA INC: $152,024 · Crime & LegalYELLOWSTONE CASA IN…Fifth Judicial District Voice for Children Inc: $12,813 · Crime & LegalFifth Judicial Dist…EASTERN MONTANA CASAGAL INC: $121,577 · Civil RightsEASTERN MONTAN…CASA OF LINCOLN COUNTY: $57,388 · Youth Development
Other$415,945Human Services$179,790Crime & Legal$164,837Civil Rights$121,577Youth Development$57,388

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

25%50%75%100%$100kgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYELLOWSTONE CASA INC: $152,024 over 2y, 14% of budgetEASTERN MONTANA CASAGAL INC: $121,577 over 2y, 21% of budgetCASA OF CASCADE COUNTY: $115,326 over 2y, 31% of budgetCASA OF LAKE & SANDERS COUNTIES: $71,765 over 2y, 17% of budgetCASA FOR KIDS INC: $64,994 over 2y, 8.6% of budgetCASA OF LINCOLN COUNTY: $57,388 over 2y, 20% of budgetCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF MISSOULA: $50,844 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetMONTANA CASAGAL ASSOCIATION: $43,031 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetFifth Judicial District Voice for Children Inc: $12,813 over 1y, 15% 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.

Montana Justice Found…Headwaters Health Fou…National Court Appoin…Otto Bremer TrustFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Montana Justice FoundationMT20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Montana Justice Foundation · Headwaters Health Foundation of Western Montana · National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association · Otto Bremer Trust · 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 Montana Casagal Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Montana Casagal Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 12 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Montana Casagal Association’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