· Community foundation
Seeley Lake Community Foundation
The SEELEY LAKE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION engages in philanthropy, provides leadership, and enhances the quality of life and economic vitality of the seeley lake area.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 15 grants below total $174,679 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $219,735 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $45,056 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
- Under $10k10 grants · $64k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $57k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MONTANA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $53,604 |
| ALPINE ARTISANS INC | $22,270 |
| UPPER SWAN VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIET | $12,706 |
| SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS | $11,827 |
| SELA SENCI | $10,100 |
| CLEARWATER RESOURCE COUNCIL | $8,379 |
| SEELEY LAKE ROCKS | $8,237 |
| PROTECT THE CLEARWATER | $7,310 |
| SEELEY-SWAN COMMUNITY FOOD BANK | $6,989 |
| PARENT TEACHER CLUB AT SLE | $6,361 |
| SEELEY SWAN HIGH SCHOOL | $5,800 |
| BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE | $5,789 |
| SEELEY LAKE NORDIC SKI CLUB | $5,184 |
| SEELEY LAKE HISTORICAL SOCIETY | $5,108 |
| SPARROW'S VINE PREGNANCY RESOURCE | $5,015 |
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 (FY19–25, $47k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +43% since the first grant, against +15% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k 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
- AAALPINE ARTISANS INC9× · 2017–2025 · $107k · revenue +43%
- SVSWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS7× · 2019–2025 · $68k · revenue +90%
- USUPPER SWAN VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC7× · 2019–2025 · $64k · revenue +31%
Funded once
- SLSEELEY LAKE ELEM SCHOOLone grant, 2018 · $50k
- SLSEELEY LAKE SEWER DISTRICTone grant, 2017 · $19k
- WIWINDFALL INCone grant, 2018 · $14k
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.
The mission of the Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group (LCFWG) is to facilitate collaboration among watershed stakeholders and to coordinate efforts to maintain, enhance, and restore the ecological integrity of tributaries to the lower Clark…
To help keep ranches in the madison valley viable and promote good stewardship, promote open space, and healthy way of life that has western values and clean water and wildlife habitate and healthy ranchlands.
To conserve, protect and restore montana's coldwater fisheries and watersheds.
Grand Teton National Park Foundation (the Foundation) is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to partner with Grand Teton National Park to steward, protect, and enhance all that is special in the park. Budget limitations,…
To preserve, research, and interpret to the public through its collections, exhibits and programs the physical and cultural heritage of the rocky mountain front region in the state of montana.
To conserve functioning salmon/steelhead eco-system at watershed levels, integrate angling activities with basic scientific research, collect raw data, monitor environmental functions, salmon/steelhead population dynamics, public…
Watershed and rivers restoration, preservation and protection
Regional conservation organization
Working for a wild yaak through science, education, and bold action.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Seeley Lake Nordic Ski Club and the most unlike its peers is Sparrows Vine. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 35 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 ALPINE ARTISANS INC ↗
- Who funds MONTANA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS ↗
- Who funds UPPER SWAN VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds SELA SENCI (THINK YOUNG) ↗
- Who funds SPARROWS VINE ↗
- Who funds BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC ↗
- Who funds BIG BLACKFOOT CHAPTER OF TROUT UNLIMITED INC ↗
- Who funds SEELEY LAKE NORDIC SKI CLUB ↗
- Who funds Missoula Electric Cooperative Inc ↗
- Who funds SEELEY-SWAN MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CLEARWATER RESOURCE COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds MISSOULA AREA AGENCY ON AGING INC ↗
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: Gianforte Family Charitable Trust · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Seeley Lake Community Foundation 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 Seeley Lake Community Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Seeley Lake Community Foundation 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.