Skip to content
The Vital Ground Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Vital Ground Foundation Inc

Vital ground works to ensure the recovery and long-term survival of grizzly bears and the many native species that share their range through the protection and restoration of wildlife habitat and landscape linkages, and by supporting community-based programs that prevent conflicts between people and wildlife.

$70k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Environment$106kAnimals$46kArts & Culture$14k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $26,710, the rows itemized in this filing. The $70,400 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $43,690 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $21k
$10,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$24M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
METHOW VALLEY BEAR AWARE$11,210
TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST$10,000
BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE$5,500
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $10k → 7%LOLO SCHOOL DISTRICT: $13k → 9%PEOPLE AND CARNIVORES: $7k → 10%MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP: $8k → 10%BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $8k → 16%BIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE: $5k → 16%CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES: $5k → 18%MONTANA FISH WILDLIFE AND PARKS: $6k → 20%PIIKANI LODGE HEALTH INSTITUTE: $14k → 26%METHOW VALLEY BEAR AWARE: $11k → 17%NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $10k → 6%WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE: $6k → 9%SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $5k → 9%MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP: $7k → 10%BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE: $6k → 16%MONTANA FISH WILDLIFE AND PARKS - WS: $5k → 20%BLACKFEET NATION STOCKGROWERS: $8k → 26%WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE: $5k → 9%SWAN VALLEY BEAR RESOURCES: $5k → 9%MICHAEL PROCTORUNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: $5k → 9%HEART OF THE ROCKIES: $7k → 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.
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 17% of The Vital Ground Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 74% of the giving stays in MT; by stated purpose, 68%.

The Vital Ground Foundation Inclessmore 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.

36%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$60k · 5 repeat orgs$106k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +109% since the first grant, against +79% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
10

Total granted

$60k
$85k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+109%
+79%

Still filing today

80%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 21% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $21k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureOther
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

  • MV
    MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP
    2× · 2018–2019 · $15k · revenue +39%
  • BC
    BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC
    2× · 2019–2024 · $14k · revenue +162%
  • WM
    WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $11k · revenue +9%

Funded once

  • HO
    HEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATIVEgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue +39%
  • PL
    Piikani Lodge Health Institutegraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $14k · revenue +146%
  • NW
    NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +39%
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
Jackson Hole Wildlife Foundation

Jackson hole wildlife foundation advances wildlife conservation driven by science, collaboration, and a community of volunteers.

Animals
2
Gallatin Wildlife Association

Promote research and actions to save wildlife.

Animals
3
Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership
Environment
4
Wood River Land Trust Co

The wood river land trust's mission is to protect and sustain the treasured landscapes and life-giving waters of the wood river valley and to inspire love for this special place for generations to come.

Environment
5
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
6
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
7
Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.

Animals
8
Big Thompson Watershed Coalition

Vision: a healthy and resilient big thompson watershed benefitting fish, wildlife, and the people itserves through collaborative efforts for current and future generations. mission: working with others to take action that protects and…

Environment
9
Park County Environmental Council

PCEC works to protect the land, water, air, wildlife and foster a resilient future for Yellowstone's Northern Gateway.

Environment
10
Yaak Valley Forest Council

Working for a wild yaak through science, education, and bold action.

Environment
11
Climate Conservation Dba Center for Large Landscape Conservation

We bring science, policy, and proven solutions directly to communities working to restore the integrity and natural connectivity of the landscapes in which they live. (see schedule o)

Environment
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Blackfoot Challenge Inc; the most unlike its peers is National Wildlife Federation. 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

13 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. 13 of the 17 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
13/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATIVE: $19,500 · EnvironmentHEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATIVEMADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP: $14,500 · EnvironmentMADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUPBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $13,500 · EnvironmentBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INCTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INCSWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $10,000 · EnvironmentSWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONSPEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INC: $7,000 · EnvironmentPEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INCTHE MONTANA LAND RELIANCE: $6,500 · EnvironmentTHE MONTANA LAND RELIANCEBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INCMETHOW VALLEY CITIZENS COUNCIL: $11,210 · OtherMETHOW VALLEY CITIZENS COUNCILWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INC: $11,000 · OtherWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INCDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES: $10,555 · OtherDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & HUMAN S…BLACKFEET NATION STOCKGROWERS: $7,500 · OtherBLACKFEET NATION STOCKGROWERSTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: $5,000 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANACONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI: $5,000 · OtherCONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAIGREAT BEAR FOUNDATION: $5,000 · OtherGREAT BEAR FOUNDATIONPiikani Lodge Health Institute: $14,000 · Arts & CulturePiikani L…NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $10,000 · Animals
Environment$86,000Other$55,265Arts & Culture$14,000Animals$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATIVE: $19,500 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetPiikani Lodge Health Institute: $14,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $13,500 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetMETHOW VALLEY CITIZENS COUNCIL: $11,210 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INC: $11,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $10,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INC: $7,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetGREAT BEAR FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 6.8% 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 Nature ConservancyPatagoniaorgThe Wilderness SocietyNational Fish and Wil…Heart of the Rockies …Rocky Mountain Elk Fo…Resources Legacy FundBlackfoot Challenge I…The High Stakes Found…National Forest Found…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…
The Nature ConservancyVA19.1× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Nature Conservancy · Patagoniaorg · The Wilderness Society · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Heart of the Rockies Initiative · Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Inc · Resources Legacy Fund · Blackfoot Challenge Inc · The High Stakes Foundation · National Forest Foundation · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Vital Ground Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Vital Ground Foundation Inc. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Wildlife Management Institute Inc: 100% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely 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 Vital Ground Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to The Vital Ground Foundation Inc 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 17 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 Vital Ground’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