Skip to content
Montana Pool Service Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Montana Pool Service Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$881k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$242k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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.

Recreation & Sports$2.2MArts & Culture$150kPublic Benefit$64kEducation$20kYouth Development$5kPhilanthropy$500
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $856k
$100,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$242,100
Individual grant recipient$200,000
Individual grant recipient$200,000
CITY OF CLINTON$100,000
CITY OF GLASGOW$63,750
CITY OF COLUMBIA FALLS$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION$19,778
GIRLS ON SHRED$5,000
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 17%, 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%CITY OF TOWNSEND: $50k → 9%CITY OF LINCOLN: $100k → 9%CITY OF RED LODGE: $50k → 9%CITY OF ARLEE: $200k → 9%city of livingston: $50k → 10%CITY OF COLUMBIA FALLS: $50k → 11%CITY OF CLINTON: $100k → 11%DARBY: $10k → 11%CITY OF GLASGOW: $64k → 12%TOWN OF SUPERIOR: $50k → 13%CITY OF DEER LODGE: $100k → 16%CITY OF TROY: $50k → 17%CITY OF SHELBY: $60k → 18%CITY OF PABLO: $242k → 18%Hill CountyBox Elder MT: $102k → 18%CITY OF HARDIN: $250k → 23%CITY OF WOLF POINT: $147k → 24%TOWN OF BROWNING: $50k → 26%TONY HAWK FOUNDATION: $500 → 11%GLACIER SKATE ASSOCIATION: $2k → 11%OUN: $10k → 10%STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE: $233k → 33%PINE RIDGE AGENCY: $15k → 42%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $20k → 9%TOWN OF SUPERIOR: $13k → 13%CITY OF SHELBY: $34k → 18%CITY OF RONAN: $200k → 18%HAVRE: $50k → 18%ZOOTOWN ARTS COMMUNITY CENTER: $150k → 9%CITY OF SHELBY: $30k → 18%GIRLS ON SHRED: $5k → 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
04the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 28 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
3/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $250,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $242,100 · OtherIndividual grant recipientSTANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE: $232,850 · OtherSTANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBEIndividual grant recipient: $200,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $200,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCITY OF WOLF POINT: $146,576 · OtherCITY OF WOLF POINTCITY OF SHELBY: $124,000 · OtherCITY OF SHELBYHill CountyBox Elder MT: $102,304 · OtherCITY OF CLINTON: $100,000 · OtherCITY OF DEER LODGE: $100,000 · OtherCITY OF LINCOLN: $100,000 · Other+13 more: $513,732 · Other+13 moreZOOTOWN ARTS COMMUNITY CENTER: $150,000 · Arts & CultureTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $19,778 · EducationGIRLS ON SHRED: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentTHE SKATEPARK PROJECT: $500 · Philanthropy
Other$2,311,562Arts & Culture$150,000Education$19,778Youth Development$5,000Philanthropy$500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetZOOTOWN ARTS COMMUNITY CENTER: $150,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $19,778 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGIRLS ON SHRED: $5,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetTHE SKATEPARK PROJECT: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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 ZOOTOWN ARTS COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds GIRLS ON SHRED ↗
  • Who funds THE SKATEPARK PROJECT ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Montana Pool Service Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Montana Pool Service Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 28 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 Montana Pool Service’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