Skip to content
Star Peak Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Star Peak Foundation

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.

$74k
Granted FY2023
6
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

92% of Star Peak Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Montana Community Foundation Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2023, the last year Star Peak Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 6 organizations, $74k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

3
’17
2
’18
2
’19
4
’20
5
’21
6
’22
6
’23
0
’24
1
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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.

Philanthropy$217kFood & Nutrition$91kHuman Services$73kEnvironment$70kHealth$65kYouth Development$16kHousing & Shelter$15kArts & Culture$5k
02FY2023 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k2 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $65k
$12,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ETHAN MURRAY FUND$25,000
PROJECT ASCENT$16,000
SANDERS COUNTY COALITION FOR FAMILIES$12,000
MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK$12,000
KANIKSU LAND TRUST INC$7,000
FOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN$2,000
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 (FY18–23, $42k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BONNER COMMUNITY FOOD CENTER: $7k → 12%BONNER COMMUNITY FOOD CENTER: $4k → 12%SANDERS COUNTY COALITION FOR FAMILIES: $15k → 17%BONNER COMMUNITY FOOD CENTER: $4k → 12%SANDERS COUNTY COALITION FOR FAMILIES: $12k → 17%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 38% of Star Peak Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Star Peak Foundationlessmore 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$150k · 6 repeat orgs$195k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +84% since the first grant, against -7% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2023, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call). Read against FY2023, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
17

Total granted

$150k
$154k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+84%
-7%

Still filing today

83%
53%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EnvironmentFood & NutritionHuman ServicesHealthHousing & ShelterYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • MF
    MONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC
    4× · 2018–2023 · $61k · revenue +99%
  • SC
    Sanders Co Coalition For Families
    2× · 2019–2023 · $27k · revenue +84%
  • BC
    BONNER COMMUNITY FOOD CENTER INC
    3× · 2018–2022 · $15k · revenue +73%

Funded once

  • CC
    Community Cancer Services Inc
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -13%
  • CN
    Cancer Network of Sanders County
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -36%
  • LC
    Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group
    one grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue -56%
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
Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership
Environment
2
Scenic Montana Trails
—
3
Montana Conservation Elders
Environment
4
Palouse Land Trust Inc

Our mission is to work with landowners and communities to conserve the lands we love, now and forever, and to enrich connections to the natural world.

Environment
5
Public Land Water Access Association

The organization's mission is to maintain, restore, and perpetuate public access to the boundaries of all Montana's public lands and waters.

—
6
Blackfoot Challenge Inc

The mission of The Blackfoot Challenge is to coordinate efforts that will conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural way of life in the Blackfoot Watershed for present and future generations.

Environment
7
Clark Fork Enrichment Corp
Arts & Culture
8
Idaho Wildlife Federation

The Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF) promotes the conservation of Idaho's wildlife heritage and legacy of sporting opportunities for the current and future generations.

Animals
9
Save our Gallatin Front Inc
Environment
10
Watershed Restoration Coalition for the

The organization is dedicated to restoring water quality, fisheries, and wildlife, and protecting the agricultural heritage and open space of the upper clark fork river basin of southwest montana. the organization pursues these goals by…

Environment
11
Teton Regional Land Trust Inc

The mission of the teton regional land trust is to conserve working farms and ranches, fish and wildlife habitat, and scenic open spaces in eastern idaho for this and future generations.

Environment
12
Rural Idaho & Mountain West Primary Care
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Community Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Bonner County Homeless Task Force. 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

17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 27 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
8/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MONTANA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $142,000 · PhilanthropyMONTANA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INCInnovia Foundation: $65,450 · PhilanthropyInnovia FoundationETHAN MURRAY FUND INC: $25,000 · OtherETHAN MURRAY FUND INCHERON COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $14,500 · OtherHERON COMMUNITY CENTE…FRIENDS OF CATHY: $10,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF CATHYPLAINS PARADISE SENIOR CENTER: $5,000 · OtherSandpoint Area Seniors Inc: $5,000 · OtherHERON DISTRICT SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $5,000 · OtherTHOMPSON FALLS SENIOR CENTER: $5,000 · OtherHOPE COMMUNITY CENTER: $4,500 · OtherNOXON SENIOR CENTER: $4,000 · OtherTROUT CREEK SENIOR CENTER INC: $4,000 · OtherCLARK FORK-HOPE AREA SENIORS: $4,000 · OtherBONNER COUNTY HOMELESS TASK FORCE: $15,000 · OtherBONNER COUNTY HOMELES…The Paradise Center: $4,500 · OtherMONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC: $61,000 · Food & NutritionMONTANA FOOD B…FOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN INC: $10,000 · Food & NutritionFOOD FOR OUR C…Kaniksu Land Trust Inc: $22,000 · EnvironmentKaniksu Land T…Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group: $15,000 · EnvironmentLower Clark Fo…ROCK CREEK ALLIANCE INC: $15,000 · EnvironmentROCK CREEK ALL…CLARK FORK COALITION: $15,000 · EnvironmentCLARK FORK COA…THE MONTANA LAND RELIANCE: $2,500 · EnvironmentSanders Co Coalition For Families: $27,000 · Human ServicesBONNER COMMUNITY FOOD CENTER INC: $15,000 · Human ServicesCommunity Cancer Services Inc: $20,000 · HealthCancer Network of Sanders County: $20,000 · HealthPROJECT ASCENT: $16,000 · Youth Development
Philanthropy$207,450Other$105,500Food & Nutrition$71,000Environment$69,500Human Services$42,000Health$40,000Youth Development$16,000

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 budgetMONTANA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $142,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetInnovia Foundation: $65,450 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMONTANA FOOD BANK NETWORK INC: $61,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSanders Co Coalition For Families: $27,000 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetKaniksu Land Trust Inc: $22,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetCommunity Cancer Services Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetCancer Network of Sanders County: $20,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetPROJECT ASCENT: $16,000 over 1y, 43% of budgetBONNER COMMUNITY FOOD CENTER INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetLower Clark Fork Watershed Group: $15,000 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetROCK CREEK ALLIANCE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetBONNER COUNTY HOMELESS TASK FORCE: $15,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetCLARK FORK COALITION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetFOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN INC: $10,000 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetSandpoint Area Seniors Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetThe Paradise Center: $4,500 over 1y, 4.5% 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Avista FoundationDennis & Phyllis Wash…Equinox Foundation IncInnovia FoundationIdaho Community Found…Bnsf Railway Foundati…Vanguard Charitable E…Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Avista FoundationWA23.7× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Avista Foundation · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Equinox Foundation Inc · Innovia Foundation · Idaho Community Foundation Inc · Bnsf Railway Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Star Peak Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Star Peak Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%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
    6report 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 27 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Star Peak’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