· Private foundation
Selah Charitable Trust
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k9 grants · $18k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $14k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WHITEFISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION - GREAT FISH CHALLENGE | $14,000 |
| FLATHEAD LAKERS | $4,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| CAMP SPALDING | $2,500 |
| ALL SAINTS EPISCOPAL CHURCH | $2,500 |
| WILD WONDER FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
| YMCA | $1,000 |
| WEST SHORE FOOD BANK | $1,000 |
| HABITAT FOR HUMANITY | $1,000 |
| BLACKFOOT CHALENGE | $1,000 |
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 (FY18–19, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 33% of Selah Charitable Trust’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +8% for the ones you funded once.
27 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2025, 21 since wound down; 3 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, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- TBThe Big Table8× · 2017–2024 · $56k · revenue +197%
- FLFLATHEAD LAKERS INC8× · 2017–2025 · $39k · revenue +28%
- CSCamp Spalding7× · 2019–2025 · $20k · revenue +42%
Funded once
- ARA ROCHA USA INC A ROCHA USAgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +75%
- NYNEW YORK THEOLOGICAL SEMINARYone grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue -14%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $7k
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 montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.
The mission of the montana land reliance (mlr) is to partner with landowners to provide permanent protection for private lands that are significant for agricultural production, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space.
Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…
To collectively serve as a catalyst for engagement and bonding of people to our wildlife and public lands in montana through a sense of place, education, access, research and stewardship.
To restore, enhance, and preserve Montana's aquatic resources to maximize their ecological function into the future.
Uniting and mobilizing communities to keep montana wild.
To conserve, protect and restore montana's coldwater fisheries and watersheds.
The mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.
Greater yellowstone coalition works with all people to protect the lands, waters, and wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem, now and for future generations.
Our mission is to protect the rural nature of Wallowa County by working cooperatively with private landowners,indigenous people, local communities and governmental entities to conserve land.
The Gallatin Watershed Council guides collaborative watershed stewardship in the Gallatin Valley for a healthy and productive landscape.
The organization's mission is to maintain, restore, and perpetuate public access to the boundaries of all Montana's public lands and waters.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Five Valleys Land Trust and the most unlike its peers is Side By Side. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 34 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 8% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
33 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. 33 of the 67 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 WHITEFISH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds The Big Table ↗
- Who funds FLATHEAD LAKERS INC ↗
- Who funds Camp Spalding ↗
- Who funds A ROCHA USA INC A ROCHA USA ↗
- Who funds MONTANA WATERFOWL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ↗
- Who funds GLACIER SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA AND CHORALE ↗
- Who funds FLATHEAD LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds WORLD RELIEF CORP OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS ↗
- Who funds Wild Wonder Foundation ↗
- Who funds WEST SHORE FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds NORTH VALLEY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds POVERELLO CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC ↗
- Who funds CHILD BRIDGE INC ↗
- Who funds SIDE BY SIDE ↗
- Who funds EMMAUS ENCOUNTER ↗
- Who funds FIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds HOMEGROWN NATIONAL PARK INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY OF WESTERN MONTANA ↗
- Who funds Montana Environmental Information Center ↗
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: Whitefish Community Foundation Inc · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · James & Wanda Hollensteiner Fdn Lisa Mary Hollensteiner · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · Cross Charitable Foundation Attn John R Clark · The Kendeda Fund · James G and Marcia H Valeo Charitable Fd · The Angora Ridge Foundation · The High Stakes Foundation · The Applied Materials 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 Selah Charitable Trust 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.
- World Relief Corp of National Association of Evangelicals — 67% of income from government
- George Fox University — 2% of income from government
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.