Skip to content

· 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.

$1.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$294k
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, FY2022 to 2025.

Human Services$3.4MHousing & Shelter$719kFood & Nutrition$606kHealth$209k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $1,055,288, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,544,981 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $489,693 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

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $112k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $395k
  • $250k+2 grants · $548k
$69,294
Median grant
1
States reached
$21M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER: $355k → 10%BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER: $331k → 10%BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER: $309k → 10%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $294k → 10%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $294k → 10%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $275k → 10%BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER: $254k → 10%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $246k → 10%BEFRIENDERS: $10k → 10%BEFRIENDERS: $10k → 10%BEFRIENDERS: $8k → 10%BEFRIENDERS: $8k → 10%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.9M · 12 repeat orgs$38k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +54% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
1

Total granted

$4.9M
$38k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
0%

Still filing today

58%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

  • BS
    BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.3M · revenue +13% · 33% of their budget
  • HR
    HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +97%
  • GS
    GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES & THRIFT STORE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $719k · revenue +29%

Funded once

  • MA
    MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING
    one grant, 2022 · $38k
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
Gem County Senior Community Center Corporation

To provide nutritious meals and social activities at the center as well as home delivered meals and transportation for seniors

Human Services
2
Powell County Senior Citizens Inc

None

—
3
Riverton Senior Citizens Center

To provide service for Riverton's seniors that enrich the participantslife, well being, daily activities and independence.

Human Services
4
Red Lodge Senior Citizens Club

Providing a support base for our seniors and a focal point for activities within the Red Lodge community.

Community Improvement
5
Southeast Grayson Senior Center

Senior Center facility for the local Meals on Wheels production.

Human Services
6
Beaverhead Allied Senior Services

The mission of this organization is to aid and assist senior citizens and provide for them a better quality of life.

—
7
Kootenai Senior Citizens Inc

To serve the senior citizens in the troy, montana, area

—
8
Meridian Area Senior Citizens Association

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,…

Human Services
9
Beaverhead Senior Citizens Association

Provide a gathering place for area seniors to gather and socialize. Includes serving a weekly meal.

Human Services
10
Kemmerer Senior Citizens Center

Serving senior citizens in South Lincoln County, Wyoming.

Human Services
11
Hockley County Senior Citizens Association Inc

The organization operates a senior center, providing social services, meals, and activities to the senior residents of hockley county.

—
12
Senior Citizens Dollar a Month Club

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.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bozeman Senior Social Center; 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.
04the grantee network

12 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. 12 of the 13 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/12
Grantees still filing
8/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES & THRIFT STORE: $718,841 · OtherGOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES & THRIFT STORELIVINGSTON MEALS ON WHEELS: $605,869 · OtherLIVINGSTON MEALS ON WHEELSMEAGHER COUNTY SENIOR CENTER: $345,250 · OtherMEAGHER COUNTY SENIOR CENTERBelgrade Community Library: $277,415 · OtherBelgrade Community LibraryA PLUS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS: $150,951 · OtherA PLUS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMSBROADWATER COUNTY: $136,063 · OtherBelgrade Senior Center: $122,060 · OtherManhattan Senior Citizens Council Inc: $97,345 · Other+2 more: $110,648 · OtherBOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER: $1,250,025 · Human ServicesBOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTERHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $1,109,436 · Human ServicesHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC+1 more: $36,800 · Human Services
Other$2,564,442Human Services$2,396,261

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 budgetBOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER: $1,250,025 over 9y, 33% of budgetHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $1,109,436 over 9y, 1.2% of budgetGOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES & THRIFT STORE: $718,841 over 9y, 17% of budgetLIVINGSTON MEALS ON WHEELS: $605,869 over 9y, 78% of budgetMEAGHER COUNTY SENIOR CENTER: $345,250 over 9y, 41% of budgetBelgrade Senior Center: $122,060 over 7y, 32% of budgetManhattan Senior Citizens Council Inc: $97,345 over 3y, 54% of budgetBefrienders: $36,800 over 7y, 11% 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 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 ↗

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.

Town Pump Charitable FoundationMT17.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Greater Gallatin United Way Inc · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · 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 Rocky Mountain Development Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rocky Mountain Development Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 13 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 Rocky Mountain Development Council’s filings →

    More from the funding graph