Skip to content
The High Stakes Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The High Stakes Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
62
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Environment$2.7MArts & Culture$826kFood & Nutrition$793kCommunity Improvement$398kHuman Services$362kPhilanthropy$238kPublic Benefit$229kAnimals$185kOther$0
02FY2025 · 62 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k12 grants · $50k
  • $10k–50k50 grants · $1.1M
$20,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$2.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Missoula Interfaith Collaborative$40,000
Montana Wilderness Association dba Wild Montana$30,000
Seeley Lake Community Foundation$30,000
Prickly Pear Land Trust$30,000
Montana Free Press$30,000
Northern Plains Resource Council$30,000
MAPS Media Institute$30,000
Western Landowners Alliance$30,000
Upper Seven Law$30,000
Common Good Montana$30,000
Neighborworks Montana$25,000
Montana Freshwater Partners$25,000
Community Food and Agriculture Coalition$25,000
Producers Partnership Inc$25,000
The Pulp$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 (FY20–25, $299k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 27% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Women in Ranching: $20k → 15%The Salish Institute: $5k → 18%Center Pole: $25k → 23%Women in Ranching: $15k → 15%Women in Ranching: $8k → 15%North Valley Food Bank: $8k → 11%Youth Homes: $20k → 9%Youth Homes: $15k → 9%Youth Homes: $15k → 9%Empower MT: $100k → 9%EmpowerMT: $30k → 9%EmpowerMT: $25k → 9%Missoula Family YMCA: $10k → 9%EmpowerMT: $4k → 9%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ID
MT
IL
WI
OR
CA
CO
VA
AZ
NM
DC
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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.4M · 82 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +52% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

82 repeat relationships: 42 still active in FY2025, 40 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

82
64

Total granted

$5.4M
$993k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%
0%

Still filing today

87%
64%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $205k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureHuman ServicesFood & NutritionCivil RightsOther
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

  • MM
    MAPS MEDIA INSTITUTE INC
    4× · 2020–2025 · $180k · revenue +7%
  • CF
    COMMUNITY FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COALITION
    5× · 2020–2025 · $166k · revenue +124%
  • EM
    EMPOWER MT
    3× · 2020–2024 · $159k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • SA
    SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC
    one grant, 2024 · $60k · revenue 0%
  • TT
    The Tiny News Collective Inc
    one grant, 2024 · $60k · revenue -30%
  • WN
    Western Native Voice
    one grant, 2024 · $40k
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
Scenic Montana Trails
—
2
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
3
Montana Conservation Elders
Environment
4
Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership
Environment
5
The Montana Land Reliance

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.

Environment
6
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.

—
7
Montana Business Leadership Council

The mblc exists to encourage and enact business-friendly policies that create good-paying jobs and make montana a better place to live. the primary purpose of the mblc is to educate the public on important business issues, enable citizens…

Community Improvement
8
Western Sustainability Exchange

Advancing sustainability in the western area of the united states through a series of programs and activities designed to promote better ranching practices. a strong focus is to provide ranchers with the information, tools, technical…

Environment
9
Montana Policy Action Inc

To promote public policy solutions that provide increased access to economic opportunities, greater individual freedoms and encourage greater participation in public matters by providing research and recommendation on public policy

Social Science
10
Montana Wildlife Federation

The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.

Animals
11
Montana Association of Conservation Districts

To heighten the public's awareness of conservation districts and their activities as well as to promote soil and water conservation.

—
12
Montanas Outdoor Legacy Foundation

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.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Land to Hand; the most unlike its peers is The Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

132 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. 132 of the 167 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)
49
Early backer (in before they grew)
128/132
Grantees still filing
79/132
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Montana Environmental Information Center: $136,200 · EnvironmentMontana Environmental Information…Park County Environmental Council: $130,000 · EnvironmentPark County Environmental CouncilHOME RESOURCE INC: $110,000 · EnvironmentHOME RESOURCE INCMT MOUNTAIN MAMAS: $110,000 · EnvironmentMT MOUNTAIN MAMASMontana Watershed Coordination Council Inc: $105,000 · EnvironmentMONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $105,000 · EnvironmentCLIMATE SMART MISSOULA INC: $105,000 · EnvironmentPRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST: $100,000 · EnvironmentBITTER ROOT LAND TRUST: $90,000 · EnvironmentBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC: $70,000 · EnvironmentCONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL COALITION: $69,000 · Environment+35 more: $894,000 · Environment+35 moreTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC: $125,000 · OtherTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INCTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $110,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $95,000 · OtherMONTANA BUDGET AND POLICY CENTER: $125,000 · OtherMONTANA BUDGET AND POLICY CENTERLEADERSHIP MONTANA INC: $85,000 · OtherMISSOULA INTERFAITH COLLABORATIVE: $110,000 · OtherFORWARD MT FOUNDATION: $90,000 · OtherNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $90,000 · OtherCODE GIRLS UNITED: $100,000 · Other+60 more: $1,331,197 · Other+60 moreNORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL: $165,000 · Community ImprovementNORTHERN PLA…PRODUCERS PARTNERSHIP INC: $110,000 · Community ImprovementPRODUCERS PA…TRUST MONTANA INC: $75,000 · Community ImprovementTRUST MONTAN…ARLEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $59,760 · Community ImprovementARLEE COMMUN…COMMON GOOD MONTANA INC: $53,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMON GOOD …NORTH-MISSOULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $50,000 · Community ImprovementNORTH-MISSOU…GALLATIN VALLEY FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC DBA PROSPERA FOUNDATION: $45,000 · Community ImprovementGALLATIN VAL…RED ANTS PANTS FOUNDATION: $40,000 · Community ImprovementHOPA MOUNTAIN INC: $40,000 · Community ImprovementLAKE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP: $33,188 · Community Improvement+9 more: $105,000 · Community Improvement+9 moreMAPS MEDIA INSTITUTE INC: $180,000 · Arts & CultureMAPS MEDIA …MONTANA FREE PRESS: $135,000 · Arts & CultureMONTANA FRE…MISSOULA WRITING COLLABORATIVE: $60,000 · Arts & CultureMISSOULA WR…The Tiny News Collective Inc: $60,000 · Arts & CultureThe Tiny Ne…The Paradise Center: $49,000 · Arts & CultureThe Paradis…AURICLE PRODUCTIONS: $45,000 · Arts & CultureAURICLE PRO…BIG SKY FILM INSTITUTE: $30,000 · Arts & CulturePiikani Lodge Health Institute: $30,000 · Arts & CultureTHE PULP: $25,000 · Arts & Culture+5 more: $85,800 · Arts & Culture+5 moreCOMMUNITY FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COALITION: $165,500 · Food & NutritionCOMMUNITY…GARDEN CITY HARVEST INC: $120,000 · Food & NutritionGARDEN CI…MONTANA LAND TO HAND: $115,000 · Food & NutritionMONTANA L…LIVINGSTON FOOD PANTRY OF PARK COUNTY: $80,000 · Food & NutritionLIVINGSTO…WINNETT ACES INC: $75,000 · Food & NutritionWINNETT A…+1 more: $10,000 · Food & NutritionEMPOWER MT: $159,000 · Human ServicesYOUTH HOMES: $90,000 · Human ServicesWOMEN IN RANCHING INC: $42,500 · Human ServicesCITIZENS FOR A BETTER FLATHEAD: $33,000 · Human ServicesCenter Pole: $25,000 · Human Services+4 more: $32,500 · Human ServicesRED LODGE AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $100,533 · PhilanthropySEELEY LAKE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $75,000 · PhilanthropyPARK COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $45,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $7,000 · Philanthropy
Environment$2,024,200Other$2,261,197Community Improvement$775,948Arts & Culture$699,800Food & Nutrition$565,500Human Services$382,000Philanthropy$227,533

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMAPS MEDIA INSTITUTE INC: $180,000 over 4y, 11% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COALITION: $165,500 over 5y, 6.0% of budgetNORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL: $165,000 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetEMPOWER MT: $159,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetMontana Environmental Information Center: $136,200 over 6y, 2.8% of budgetMONTANA FREE PRESS: $135,000 over 5y, 2.3% of budgetPark County Environmental Council: $130,000 over 5y, 3.7% of budgetTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC: $125,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetMONTANA BUDGET AND POLICY CENTER: $125,000 over 5y, 2.4% of budgetGARDEN CITY HARVEST INC: $120,000 over 3y, 4.9% of budgetMONTANA LAND TO HAND: $115,000 over 4y, 6.4% of budgetPRODUCERS PARTNERSHIP INC: $110,000 over 5y, 5.3% of budgetHOME RESOURCE INC: $110,000 over 4y, 6.3% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $110,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMISSOULA INTERFAITH COLLABORATIVE: $110,000 over 4y, 3.8% of budgetMT MOUNTAIN MAMAS: $110,000 over 4y, 15% of budgetMontana Watershed Coordination Council Inc: $105,000 over 4y, 11% of budgetMONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION: $105,000 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetCLIMATE SMART MISSOULA INC: $105,000 over 3y, 21% of budgetRED LODGE AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $100,533 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetCODE GIRLS UNITED: $100,000 over 4y, 10.0% of budgetPRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST: $100,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetBITTER ROOT LAND TRUST: $90,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetFORWARD MT FOUNDATION: $90,000 over 3y, 3.2% of budgetYOUTH HOMES: $90,000 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $90,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetLEADERSHIP MONTANA INC: $85,000 over 4y, 4.3% of budgetLIVINGSTON FOOD PANTRY OF PARK COUNTY: $80,000 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetTHEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC: $75,000 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetTRUST MONTANA INC: $75,000 over 4y, 6.4% of budgetWINNETT ACES INC: $75,000 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetSEELEY LAKE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 3y, 7.0% of budgetMainstreet Uptown Butte Inc: $75,000 over 3y, 6.8% of budgetBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC: $70,000 over 4y, 6.1% of budgetCONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL COALITION: $69,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetFARM TO SCHOOL OF PARK COUNTY: $65,000 over 3y, 6.3% of budgetWHITEFISH LEGACY PARTNERS INC: $65,000 over 3y, 4.2% of budgetFRIENDS OF SCOTCHMAN PEAKS WILDERNESS INC: $62,000 over 5y, 6.2% of budgetMISSOULA WRITING COLLABORATIVE: $60,000 over 4y, 7.3% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $60,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Tiny News Collective Inc: $60,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetARLEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $59,760 over 3y, 10% of budgetTHE GLACIER-TWO MEDICINE ALLIANCE: $57,000 over 5y, 7.8% of budgetUPPER SEVEN LAW: $55,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetNORTH-MISSOULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $50,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetThe Paradise Center: $49,000 over 5y, 18% of budgetYAAK VALLEY FOREST COUNCIL: $47,500 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetWESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER: $46,300 over 2y, 0.5% 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.

Dennis & Phyllis Wash…Montana Community Fou…The Kendeda FundHeadwaters Health Fou…The Arthur M Blank Fa…First Interstate Banc…PatagoniaorgTreacy FoundationCross Charitable Foun…Town Pump Charitable …The Steele-Reese Foun…Otto Bremer Trust
Dennis & Phyllis Washington FoundationMT80.9× affinity43 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Montana Community Foundation Inc · The Kendeda Fund · Headwaters Health Foundation of Western Montana · The Arthur M Blank Family Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Patagoniaorg · Treacy Foundation · Cross Charitable Foundation Attn John R Clark · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · The Steele-Reese Foundation Xxxxx1004 · Otto Bremer Trust

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 The High Stakes Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The High Stakes Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get no government money at all
    30report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The High Stakes Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The High Stakes 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.

    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 167 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on High Stakes’ 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