Skip to content

· Public charity

Montana Homeownership Network Inc

Create sustainable homeownership opportunities and improve the availability of affordable rentals.

$1.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$322k
Largest
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 2025.

Housing & Shelter$6.7MEnvironment$370kCommunity Improvement$50kHuman Services$41kCrime & Legal$15k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k7 grants · $634k
  • $250k+3 grants · $901k
$121,378
Median grant
1
States reached
$90M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC OF GREAT FALLS$321,960
RURAL DYNAMICS INC$321,199
HOMEWORD INC$257,899
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX$160,047
DISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT$121,378
ROCKY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORP$111,854
DISTRICT XI HUMAN RESOURCE COUNCIL$69,600
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF MT$67,583
DISTRICT 6 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT$52,640
HEADWATERS RG&D AREA INC$51,115
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 (FY17–25, $2.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 41% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $234k → 10%COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF MT: $68k → 11%RURAL DYNAMICS INC: $321k → 14%DISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $21k → 18%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX: $160k → 10%DISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $16k → 18%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $146k → 10%RURAL DYNAMICS INC: $171k → 14%DISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $12k → 18%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $135k → 10%DISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $8k → 18%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $125k → 10%DISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $6k → 18%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $116k → 10%DISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $6k → 18%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $107k → 10%RURAL DYNAMICS INC: $86k → 14%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $79k → 10%HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $65k → 10%ST VINCENT DE PAUL OF NORTH CENTRAL MT: $84k → 14%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6.5M · 15 repeat orgs$673k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +36% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
8

Total granted

$6.5M
$620k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+23%

Still filing today

87%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $53k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentHealthEmploymentOther
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

  • HI
    HOMEWORD INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +110%
  • HR
    HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +97%
  • D7
    DISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $894k · revenue +9%

Funded once

  • BB
    BLUE BUNCH FLATS LLPP
    one grant, 2019 · $370k
  • CC
    CASCADE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL
    one grant, 2023 · $84k · revenue +23%
  • CR
    Crosswinds Recovery
    one grant, 2023 · $84k · revenue +25%
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
Northwest Montana Community Land Trust Inc

Provide permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income families in the flathead valley and nw montana.

Housing & Shelter
2
Intermountain Development Company I

Through creative partnerships and innovative development, the company, with its related party missoula housing authority, provide quality housing solutions for low and middle income households in missoula, mt and the surrounding area

Housing & Shelter
3
Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation - Parent

To provide decent and affordable housing to low and moderate income persons.

Housing & Shelter
4
North Central Montana Economic Development District

To provide through local leadership economic, technical, and engineering information, and access to resources to improve theeconomies in the area.

Community Improvement
5
Housing Resources of Western Colorado

To provide affordable housing and to promote the wise and sustainable use of the earth's resources.

—
6
Lake Agassiz Regional Development Corporation

To identify and provide financing opportunities and technical assistance to emerging and existing businesses, provide community and economic development planning and implementation for the long-term sustainability and growth of the region,…

—
7
Montana Cooperative Development Center Inc

To promote and develop cooperatives to meet the economic needs and community needs of rural montana.

Community Improvement
8
South Central Montana Regional Mental Health Center

The region iii mental health center is a registered non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation dedicated to the establishment, development and maintenance of high quality mental health and chemical dependency care in south central montana.

—
9
Habitat for Humanity Missoula Inc

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.

—
10
Northern Homes Community Development Corporation

To create and preserve quality affordable housing options for northern michigan residents through education, development, and partnering with local communities.

Human Services
11
Rural Resources Community Action

To assist people and communities to develop the skills, resources, and services necessary to improve their general welfare.

Human Services
12
Gallatin Watershed Council Inc

The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative watershed stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwest Montana Human Resources Inc Dba Community Action Parnership Nw Mt; the most unlike its peers is Cascade County Council of the Society of St Vincent De Paul. 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

17 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. 17 of the 24 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
15/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $1,167,048 · Human ServicesHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT I…DISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $893,637 · Human ServicesDISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL I…RURAL DYNAMICS INC: $578,075 · Human ServicesRURAL DYNAMICS INCNORTHWEST MONTANA HUMAN RESOURCES INC DBA COMMUNITY ACTION PARNERSHIP NW MT: $293,711 · Human ServicesNORTHWEST MONTANA HUMAN RESOURCES INC DBA COMMUN…+2 more: $152,422 · Human ServicesHOMEWORD INC: $1,195,745 · Housing & ShelterHOMEWORD INCNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC OF GF: $649,199 · Housing & ShelterNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES…NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC OF GREAT FALLS: $404,555 · OtherNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSI…BLUE BUNCH FLATS LLPP: $369,929 · OtherBLUE BUNCH FLATS L…SALISH AND KOOTENAI HOUSING AUTHORITY: $177,731 · OtherSALISH AND KOOTENA…DISTRICT XI HUMAN RESOURCE COUNCIL INC: $146,577 · OtherDISTRICT XI HUMAN …DISTRICT 6 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT: $52,640 · Other+4 more: $44,470 · OtherROCKY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $476,020 · Community ImprovementSNOWY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORP: $68,246 · Community ImprovementHEADWATERS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA INC: $173,793 · EnvironmentBITTER ROOT RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT AREA INC: $138,848 · EnvironmentCrosswinds Recovery: $84,099 · HealthGRATITUDE IN ACTION FOUNDATION: $37,753 · HealthGREAT NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $96,268 · Employment
Human Services$3,084,893Housing & Shelter$1,844,944Other$1,195,902Community Improvement$544,266Environment$312,641Health$121,852Employment$96,268

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 budgetHOMEWORD INC: $1,195,745 over 9y, 2.5% of budgetHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $1,167,048 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetDISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $893,637 over 9y, 1.4% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC OF GF: $649,199 over 5y, 12% of budgetRURAL DYNAMICS INC: $578,075 over 3y, 20% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $476,020 over 9y, 1.0% of budgetNORTHWEST MONTANA HUMAN RESOURCES INC DBA COMMUNITY ACTION PARNERSHIP NW MT: $293,711 over 9y, 1.1% of budgetHEADWATERS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA INC: $173,793 over 8y, 3.0% of budgetDISTRICT XI HUMAN RESOURCE COUNCIL INC: $146,577 over 6y, 1.0% of budgetBITTER ROOT RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT AREA INC: $138,848 over 6y, 2.7% of budgetGREAT NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $96,268 over 6y, 2.7% of budgetCASCADE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL: $84,124 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetCrosswinds Recovery: $84,099 over 1y, 8.7% of budgetDISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCE DEV COUNCIL: $68,298 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetSNOWY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORP: $68,246 over 6y, 1.8% of budgetGRATITUDE IN ACTION FOUNDATION: $37,753 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetMONTANA LEGAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION: $15,102 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • Who funds HOMEWORD INC ↗
  • Who funds HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC ↗
  • Who funds DISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC OF GF ↗
  • Who funds RURAL DYNAMICS INC ↗
  • Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWEST MONTANA HUMAN RESOURCES INC DBA COMMUNITY ACTION PARNERSHIP NW MT ↗
  • Who funds HEADWATERS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT AREA INC ↗
  • Who funds DISTRICT XI HUMAN RESOURCE COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds BITTER ROOT RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT AREA INC ↗
  • Who funds GREAT NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds CASCADE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL ↗
  • Who funds Crosswinds Recovery ↗
  • Who funds DISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCE DEV COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds SNOWY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORP ↗
  • Who funds GRATITUDE IN ACTION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MONTANA LEGAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION ↗

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 Healthcare FoundationMT19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Montana Healthcare Foundation · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Energy Share of Montana Inc · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Wells Fargo Foundation · United Way of Cascade County · Montana Food Bank Network Inc · Headwaters Health Foundation of Western Montana · Otto Bremer Trust · 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 Homeownership Network Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Montana Homeownership Network Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 24 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 Homeownership Network’s filings →

    More from the funding graph