· Public charity
Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc
Unite and support Montanas community-based conservation networks to promote healthy and productive watersheds.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 16 grants below total $100,402 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $104,590 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $4,188 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k12 grants · $45k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $55k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Yaak Valley Forest Council | $19,371 |
| Bitterroot Water Partnership | $13,871 |
| Gallatin River Task Force | $11,262 |
| Upper Yellowstone Watershed Group | $10,608 |
| Prickly Pear Land Trust | $7,954 |
| Lake County Conservation District | $7,500 |
| Broadwater Conservation District | $5,000 |
| Sun River Watershed Group | $4,994 |
| Centennial Valley Association | $4,500 |
| Clearwater Resource Council | $4,200 |
| Lolo Watershed Group | $3,000 |
| City of Missoula Stormwater Utility | $2,939 |
| Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalit | $1,875 |
| Montana Discovery Foundation | $1,836 |
| Mineral County Economic Development | $1,250 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 71% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +37% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- BWBITTERROOT WATER PARTNERSHIP2× · 2023–2024 · $24k · revenue +37%
- SRSUN RIVER WATERSHED2× · 2023–2024 · $19k · revenue +58%
- GRGallatin River Task Force2× · 2023–2024 · $16k · revenue +150%
Funded once
- BCBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +50%
- GWGallatin Watershed Council Incgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $16k · revenue +83%
- LCLower Clark Fork Watershed Groupone grant, 2023 · $12k · revenue -32%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Maintain the swan valley's unique natural resources and ensure that a vibrant human community can sustain itself through stewardship, education, economic viability, and conservation on public and private lands.
Promote research and actions to save wildlife.
The wood river land trust's mission is to protect and sustain the treasured landscapes and life-giving waters of the wood river valley and to inspire love for this special place for generations to come.
The organization is dedicated to restoring water quality, fisheries, and wildlife, and protecting the agricultural heritage and open space of the upper clark fork river basin of southwest montana. the organization pursues these goals by…
Upper missouri waterkeeper protects fishable, swimmable, drinkable water throughout the 25,000 square miles of montana's upper missouri river basin of montana. to accomplish this mission we actively engage with citizens, stakeholders and…
Watershed and rivers restoration, preservation and protection
Vision: a healthy and resilient big thompson watershed benefitting fish, wildlife, and the people itserves through collaborative efforts for current and future generations. mission: working with others to take action that protects and…
To promote stewardship of the Crooked River Watershed and its resources and to ensure sustainable watershed health, functions, and uses for optimal conservation and benefit.
To conserve, protect and restore montana's coldwater fisheries and watersheds.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Big Hole Watershed Committee Inc and the most unlike its peers is Winnett Aces Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 40 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC ↗
- Who funds YAAK VALLEY FOREST COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds BITTERROOT WATER PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds SUN RIVER WATERSHED ↗
- Who funds Gallatin Watershed Council Inc ↗
- Who funds Gallatin River Task Force ↗
- Who funds Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group ↗
- Who funds CLEARWATER RESOURCE COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds PRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds STILLWATER VALLEY WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds WINNETT ACES INC ↗
- Who funds BIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC ↗
- Who funds Centennial Valley Association Inc ↗
- Who funds JEFFERSON RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds MONTANA DISCOVERY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE COMMON GROUND PROJECT ↗
- Who funds MISSOULA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
- Who funds GALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The High Stakes Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Montana Trout Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Cadeau Foundation · The Kendeda Fund · The Nature Conservancy · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc?
Find your warmest path to Montana Watershed Coordination Council Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.