Skip to content
Snowy Mountain Development Corp at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Snowy Mountain Development Corp

To improve economic and social conditions through conservation, utilization, expansion, and development of all accessible resources in the area.

$187k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$65k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$1.2MHealth$175kHousing & Shelter$75kCommunity Improvement$7k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $95,103, the rows itemized in this filing. The $186,601 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $91,498 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–50k2 grants · $30k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $65k
$15,699
Median grant
3
States reached
$9.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PERFECT 10 ROOFING$65,365
TETRA TECH INC$15,699
WWC ENGINEERING$14,039
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 53% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%GROVERSBROADWATER CO HD: $9k → 9%OLYMPUS TECHNICAL SERVICES: $148k → 9%BLUEBUNCH FLATS LLLP: $184k → 9%SAFETECH INC: $116k → 9%MSU INNOVATION CAMPUS: $42k → 10%TESLOW GRAIN ELEVATORTESLOW PRESERVATION GROUP: $34k → 10%HILGER MEATSCOUNTRY STORE: $11k → 12%PETROLEUM COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER: $7k → 13%WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS SCHOOLS: $43k → 15%ROUNDUP PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $82k → 16%BIEGALS BARCITY OF HARLOWTON: $23k → 20%CROWLY BLOCKBIGHORN VALLEY HEALTH CLINIC: $118k → 23%WWC ENGINEERING: $32k → 10%TRIHYDRO CORPORATION: $10k → 17%HELENA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: $21k → 9%WGM GROUP: $10k → 9%TESLOW: $12k → 10%ON YOUR WAYFERGUS CO: $170k → 12%ROUNDUP FEMAMUSSELSHELL CO: $68k → 16%WHEATLAND COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERC: $11k → 20%CROWLEY BLOCKBIGHORN VALLEY HEALTH CLINIC: $45k → 23%WWC ENGINEERING: $14k → 10%HELENA HOUSING: $10k → 9%ROUNDUP FEMAMUSSELSHELL COUNTY: $7k → 10%FERGUS CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $12k → 12%LOWER MUSSELSHELL CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $35k → 16%BIEGALS BARCITY OF HARLOWTON: $6k → 20%CROWLEY PROJECTBIG HORN VHCI: $11k → 23%FARMER'S UNIONMUSSELSHELL COUNTY: $34k → 16%LOWER MUSSELSHELL CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $22k → 16%STOCKMANS BARCITY OF ROUNDUP: $7k → 16%FARMERS UNIONMUSSELSHELL CO: $7k → 16%STOCKMAN BARCITY OF ROUNDUP: $5k → 16%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.

35%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$500k · 7 repeat orgs$949k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
16

Total granted

$500k
$867k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+10%
+172%

Still filing today

43%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $81k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
Community ImprovementHealthHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • BV
    BIGHORN VALLEY HEALTH CENTER INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $175k · revenue +198%
  • RF
    ROUNDUP FEMAMUSSELSHELL CO
    2× · 2020–2021 · $115k
  • LM
    LOWER MUSSELSHELL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
    3× · 2022–2024 · $58k

Funded once

  • BB
    BLUE BUNCH FLATS LLPP
    one grant, 2019 · $184k
  • OY
    ON YOUR WAYFERGUS CO
    one grant, 2020 · $170k
  • OT
    OLYMPUS TECHNICAL SERVICES
    one grant, 2023 · $148k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 25 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
3/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BLUE BUNCH FLATS LLPP: $183,515 · OtherBLUE BUNCH FLATS LLPPON YOUR WAYFERGUS CO: $170,239 · OtherON YOUR WAYFERGUS COOLYMPUS TECHNICAL SERVICES: $148,205 · OtherOLYMPUS TECHNICAL SERVICESSAFETECH INC: $115,688 · OtherSAFETECH INCROUNDUP FEMAMUSSELSHELL CO: $115,028 · OtherROUNDUP FEMAMUSSELSHELL COROUNDUP PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $81,670 · OtherROUNDUP PUBLIC SCHOOLSPERFECT 10 ROOFING: $65,365 · OtherPERFECT 10 ROOFINGLOWER MUSSELSHELL CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $57,861 · OtherWWC ENGINEERING: $45,988 · OtherTESLOW PRESERVATION GROUP: $45,835 · OtherWHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS SCHOOLS: $42,592 · OtherMSU INNOVATION CAMPUS: $42,289 · Other+9 more: $109,715 · Other+9 moreBIGHORN VALLEY HEALTH CENTER INC: $175,000 · HealthBIGHORN VALLE…HELENA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $31,238 · Housing & ShelterWHEATLAND COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10,869 · Community ImprovementPETROLEUM COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $7,348 · Community Improvement
Other$1,223,990Health$175,000Housing & Shelter$31,238Community Improvement$18,217

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBIGHORN VALLEY HEALTH CENTER INC: $175,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetWHEATLAND COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10,869 over 1y, 16% of budgetPETROLEUM COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $7,348 over 1y, 0.1% 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 BIGHORN VALLEY HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds TESLOW PRESERVATION GROUP ↗
  • Who funds HELENA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds WHEATLAND COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
  • Who funds PETROLEUM COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Snowy Mountain Development Corp funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Snowy Mountain Development Corp. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 25 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 Snowy Mountain Development’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home