Skip to content
St James Healthcare at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

St James Healthcare

We reveal and foster god's healing love by improving the health of the people and communities we serve, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.

$4.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$3.7M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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 2024.

Health$23MFood & Nutrition$76kCommunity Improvement$14k
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $51k
  • $250k+2 grants · $4.1M
$397,376
Median grant
2
States reached
$137M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM INC$3,714,190
ST JAMES HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION$397,376
BUTTE EMERGENCY FOOD BANK$50,500
HELP CENTER INC$25,000
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 (FY19–24, $35k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%HELP CENTER INC: $25k → 10%ACTION INC: $10k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 12% of St James Healthcare’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 16% of the giving stays in MT; by stated purpose, 89%.

St James Healthcarelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its 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
Butte Silver Bow Primary Health Care Clinic Inc

Southwest Montana Community Health Center is guided by its Mission to "Inspire Hope and Empower Wellness by Providing Access to Comprehensive Healthcare".

Health
2
South Central Montana Regional Mental Health Center

The region iii mental health center is a registered non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation dedicated to the establishment, development and maintenance of high quality mental health and chemical dependency care in south central montana.

—
3
Bozeman Deaconess Foundation

To support Bozeman Health Services by promoting community participation in and financial support of activities to improve community health and quality of life.

Philanthropy
4
St Luke Community Hospital

The mission of st. luke community healthcare is to remain an integral component of the communities of the mission valley through the delivery of personal, compassionate, quality health care in a dignified manner that values our patients,…

Health
5
Summit Community Care Clinic Inc

Provide exceptional, integrated, patient-centered health care services designed to meet the needs of all patients, particularly those who experience barriers to accessing care, regardless of their ability to pay.

Health
6
Missoula Community Foundation

To enhance community vitality by inspiring community giving and strengthening nonprofits

Community Improvement
7
Montana Healthcare Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Valley Community Emergency Food Bank Inc

Our mission is to end hunger in the valley county, montana area through food acquisition and distribution, education, and advocacy. our vision is a montana free from hunger where everyone has equal access to nutritious food.

Food & Nutrition
9
Bozeman Deaconess Health Services

To improve community health and quality of life.

Health
10
Butte-Silverbow Council On Aging

None

Health
11
Boulder Community Housing Corporation Inc

The mission statement of Boulder Community Housing Organization is to provide quality, affordable homes and foster thriving communities. They aim to create a diverse, inclusive, and sustainable Boulder by offering affordable housing…

Housing & Shelter
12
Montana Contractors Association Inc

Promotion and development of montana's construction industry.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Community Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Silver Bow County Developmental Disabilities Council Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

8 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $19,106,011 · HealthSISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM INCST JAMES HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION INC: $2,550,446 · OtherST JAMES HEAL…+3 more: $89,000 · OtherMONTANA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $1,000,000 · PhilanthropyHELP CENTER INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesACTION INC: $10,000 · Human Services
Health$19,106,011Other$2,639,446Philanthropy$1,000,000Human Services$35,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $19,106,011 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetST JAMES HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION INC: $2,550,446 over 8y, 37% of budgetMONTANA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $1,000,000 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetButte Emergency Food Bank: $50,500 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetSILVER BOW COUNTY DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COUNCIL INC: $25,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetHELP CENTER INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBUTTE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $13,500 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetACTION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 St James Healthcare funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from St James Healthcare. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 8 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on St James Healthcare’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