· Public charity
Rocky Mountain Development Council
ROCKY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL provides a variety of services to low income families and individuals in lewis & clark, broadwater, and jefferson counties in the state of montana.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 11 grants below total $1,055,288 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,544,981 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $489,693 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 · FY2025
- $10k–50k5 grants · $112k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $395k
- $250k+2 grants · $548k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| DISTRICT IX HRDC | $293,801 |
| BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER | $254,452 |
| LIVINGSTON MEALS ON WHEELS | $137,037 |
| CITY OF BELGRADE | $108,934 |
| GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES | $79,480 |
| MEAGHER COUNTY SENIOR CENTER | $69,294 |
| A PLUS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS | $35,583 |
| MANHATTAN SENIOR CENTER | $28,244 |
| MEAGHER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT | $19,750 |
| BROADWATER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT | $18,713 |
| BEFRIENDERS | $10,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY22–25, $2.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those 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 +54% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.
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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
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
- BSBOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER9× · 2017–2025 · $1.3M · revenue +13% · 33% of their budget
- HRHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +97%
- GSGOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES & THRIFT STORE9× · 2017–2025 · $719k · revenue +29%
Funded once
- MAMONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVINGone grant, 2022 · $38k
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.
To provide nutritious meals and social activities at the center as well as home delivered meals and transportation for seniors
None
To provide service for Riverton's seniors that enrich the participantslife, well being, daily activities and independence.
Providing a support base for our seniors and a focal point for activities within the Red Lodge community.
Senior Center facility for the local Meals on Wheels production.
The mission of this organization is to aid and assist senior citizens and provide for them a better quality of life.
To serve the senior citizens in the troy, montana, area
The program provides transportation, outreach services, meals, and recreational programs to the community's elderly citizens. The program serves more than 21,000 senior citizens in Meridian, Idaho. Seniors are transported for medical care,…
Provide a gathering place for area seniors to gather and socialize. Includes serving a weekly meal.
Serving senior citizens in South Lincoln County, Wyoming.
The organization operates a senior center, providing social services, meals, and activities to the senior residents of hockley county.
To improve and promote the general welfare of those 60 years of age and older, and those with disabilities or otherwise unable to care for themselves. Primarily to provide meals to seniors.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bozeman Senior Social Center and the most unlike its peers is Livingston Meals On Wheels. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 13 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 BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC ↗
- Who funds GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES & THRIFT STORE ↗
- Who funds LIVINGSTON MEALS ON WHEELS ↗
- Who funds MEAGHER COUNTY SENIOR CENTER ↗
- Who funds Belgrade Senior Center ↗
- Who funds Manhattan Senior Citizens Council Inc ↗
- Who funds MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING ↗
- Who funds Befrienders ↗
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: Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Greater Gallatin United Way Inc · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Rocky Mountain Development Council 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.