Skip to content
Western Futures Fund Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Western Futures Fund Inc

Western futures fund, inc.

$6.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
22
Grants FY2024still arriving
11
States reached
$1.9M
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Public Benefit$7.2MCommunity Improvement$1.7MEmployment$914kEnvironment$790kHuman Services$352kCrime & Legal$230kCivil Rights$200kHousing & Shelter$70kOther$0
02FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $70k
  • $50k–250k12 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+6 grants · $5.6M
$100,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$3.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT ACTION INC$1,950,000
YOUR COMMUNITY PAC INC$1,500,000
RETIRE CAREER POLITICIANS INC$970,000
CLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA EDUCATION FUND$500,000
ALASKA JOBS COALITION$400,000
WORKING MONTANANS$300,000
NMM$200,000
YOUR NEBRASKA$100,000
WAY BACK PAC$100,000
WYOMING WAY PAC$100,000
907 INITIATIVE$100,000
MONTANANS FOR ELECTION REFORM ACTION FUND$100,000
MONTANA STATE AFL-CIO$95,000
WYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE$75,000
IDAHOANS UNITED FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES INC$60,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 75% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%YOUR COMMUNITY PAC INC: $1.5M → 10%SHE'S ELECTABLE: $13k → 12%NMM: $200k → 13%VOTES IDAHO CORPORATION: $487k → 8%MONTANA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION: $130k → 9%WORKING MONTANANS: $300k → 9%RETIRE CAREER POLITICIANS INC: $970k → 14%KANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE: $27k → 15%WESTERN STATES STRATEGIES: $14k → 12%UTAH LEADS: $370k → 8%ALASKA PROGRESSIVE DONOR TABLE: $25k → 10%ALASKA JOBS COALITION: $400k → 22%INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT ACTION INC: $1.9M → 14%WYOMING WAY PAC: $110k → 5%WAY BACK PAC: $100k → 10%WYOMING WAY PAC: $100k → 15%BETTER WYOMING ACTION AND RESEARCH: $30k → 17%VOTER DEFENSE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH DAKOTA: $40k → 9%YOUR NEBRASKA: $100k → 12%MONTANA STATE AFL-CIO: $95k → 9%WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS: $60k → 9%OPEN DEMOCRACY PAC: $55k → 14%WESTERN STATES STRATEGIES: $10k → 12%UTAH DONOR COLLABORATIVE: $33k → 8%ANCHORAGE CARE FOR KIDS: $100k → 10%ANCHORAGE SCHOOL BOND YES: $50k → 22%WYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE: $75k → 5%WAY BACK PAC: $50k → 10%BETTER WYOMING: $20k → 17%MONTANA STATE AFL-CIO: $75k → 9%UTAH WOMEN AND POLITICS PAC: $20k → 8%907 INITIATIVE: $275k → 10%ALASKA STATE AFL-CIO: $44k → 22%SHELTER JH: $70k → 5%WAY BACK PAC: $50k → 10%SECURE ELECTIONS PROJECT: $50k → 9%O2 UTAH: $20k → 8%907 INITIATIVE: $250k → 10%WILD MONTANA ACTION FUND: $25k → 9%O2 UT: $10k → 8%ALASKANS FOR FAIR COURTS: $100k → 10%907 INITIATIVE: $100k → 10%ALASKANS FOR BETTER ELECTIONS: $80k → 10%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

AK
WA
ID
MT
IL
OR
WY
SD
UT
NE
DE
KS
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.

18%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 9 repeat orgs$9.5M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +83% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
23

Total granted

$2.0M
$3.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+83%
+26%

Still filing today

78%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 7% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.3M went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
Public BenefitCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentHuman ServicesCrime & LegalOther
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

  • 9I
    907 INITIATIVE
    3× · 2022–2024 · $625k · revenue +133% · 73% of their budget
  • MS
    MONTANA STATE AFL-CIO
    2× · 2023–2024 · $170k · revenue +83%
  • AB
    A BETTER BIG SKY
    3× · 2022–2024 · $145k · revenue +298%

Funded once

  • KC
    KEEP COUNTRY FIRST POLICY ACTION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $1.1M · revenue -49% · 37% of their budget
  • UL
    Utah Leads
    one grant, 2022 · $370k
  • MF
    MIDDLE FORK STRATEGIES INC
    one grant, 2023 · $252k · 28% of their budget
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
Alaskans for Better Elections Foundation
Civil Rights
2
Four for Montana Action Fund

To promote social welfare including, but not limited to, advocating for electoral reforms that give montanans more choice in candidates for elections.

—
3
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
4
Nebraska Votes

The organization's purpose is to ensure a fair and modern democracy in nebraska through research, education, and advocacy for policies and practices that promote participation in democracy.

Civil Rights
5
Better Utah Institute

The mission of better utah institute is to educate utahns on issues of public concern and to increase civic engagement.

Civil Rights
6
Montana Conservation Voters Inc

Montana conservation voters protects our clean air, clean water, public lands and democracy by supporting leaders who fight for these rights and by holding accountable leaders who do not.

—
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
Alaska Wilderness League Action

Alaska wilderness league action (awla) deploys citizen support to realize political change, legislative gains and accountability of congress and the administration to protect alaska's wild landscapes.

Environment
9
Utah Ranked Choice Voting Action

Educate public officials regarding Ranked Choice Voting and advocate for legislation

Civil Rights
10
New Approach Montana

New Approach Montana is a registered Montana ballot question committee in support of two 2020 ballot initiatives for the legalization of marijuana for adults 21 and older.

—
11
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska Foundation

The aclu of alaska is a non-partisan organization dedicated to advancing the cause of civil liberties in alaska through public education and legal action.

Civil Rights
12
Utahns for Responsive Government Dba Better Boundaries

Utahns for a Responsive Government, DBA Better Boundaries mission is to create an independent redistricting process that utilizes voter-centric standards. We use education, advocacy, policy, and the justice system to reach our goal of…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Votes Idaho Company; the most unlike its peers is Stewardship Utah. 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

33 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. 33 of the 46 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.

10
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
33/33
Grantees still filing
18/33
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

YOUR COMMUNITY PAC: $1,500,000 · OtherYOUR COMMUNITY PACRETIRE CAREER POLITICIANS: $970,000 · OtherRETIRE CAREER POLITICIANS907 INITIATIVE: $625,000 · Other907 INITIATIVEVOTES IDAHO COMPANY: $561,750 · OtherVOTES IDAHO COMPANYALASKA JOBS COALITION: $400,000 · OtherALASKA JOBS COALITIONUtah Leads: $370,000 · OtherUtah LeadsWORKING MONTANANS: $300,000 · OtherBIG SKY VOTES PAC: $250,000 · Other+18 more: $1,729,000 · Other+18 moreRESPONSIVE GOV ACTION INC: $1,950,000 · Civil RightsRESPONSIVE GOV ACTION INCKEEP COUNTRY FIRST POLICY ACTION INC: $1,100,000 · Civil RightsKEEP COUNTRY FIRST POLICY ACTIO…+3 more: $155,000 · Civil RightsCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA EDUCATION FUND: $500,000 · EnvironmentWILD MONTANA ACTION FUND: $55,000 · EnvironmentALASKANS FOR POSTERITY INC: $150,000 · Public BenefitAlaskans for Better Elections: $80,000 · Public BenefitWYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE: $75,000 · Public BenefitSECURE ELECTION PROJECT INC: $50,000 · Public BenefitWESTERN STATES STRATEGIES: $23,500 · Public BenefitBETTER WYOMING: $20,000 · Public BenefitMIDDLE FORK STRATEGIES INC: $252,000 · Human ServicesA BETTER BIG SKY: $145,000 · Community ImprovementSTEWARDSHIP UTAH: $30,000 · Community ImprovementKANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE: $27,125 · Community ImprovementAlaska Progressive Donor Table: $25,000 · Community ImprovementALASKANS FOR FAIR COURTS: $100,000 · Crime & LegalSHELTERJH: $70,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$6,705,750Civil Rights$3,205,000Environment$555,000Public Benefit$398,500Human Services$252,000Community Improvement$227,125Crime & Legal$100,000Housing & Shelter$70,000

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 budgetRESPONSIVE GOV ACTION INC: $1,950,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetKEEP COUNTRY FIRST POLICY ACTION INC: $1,100,000 over 1y, 37% of budget907 INITIATIVE: $625,000 over 3y, 73% of budgetVOTES IDAHO COMPANY: $561,750 over 3y, 94% of budgetCLEAN AND PROSPEROUS AMERICA EDUCATION FUND: $500,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetWORKING MONTANANS: $300,000 over 1y, 80% of budgetMIDDLE FORK STRATEGIES INC: $252,000 over 1y, 28% of budgetNMM: $200,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetMONTANA STATE AFL-CIO: $170,000 over 2y, 8.0% of budgetALASKANS FOR POSTERITY INC: $150,000 over 1y, 98% of budgetA BETTER BIG SKY: $145,000 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS FOR IDAHO INC: $145,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetMONTANA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION: $130,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetALASKANS FOR FAIR COURTS: $100,000 over 1y, 75% of budgetYOUR NEBRASKA: $100,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetMONTANANS FOR ELECTION REFORM ACTION FUND: $100,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAlaskans for Better Elections: $80,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetWYOMING DONOR ALLIANCE: $75,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetSHELTERJH: $70,000 over 1y, 44% of budgetWESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS: $60,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetIDAHOANS UNITED FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES: $60,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetWILD MONTANA ACTION FUND: $55,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetSECURE ELECTION PROJECT INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetAMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGS - AK: $44,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetUtah Donor Collaborative: $32,500 over 1y, 12% of budgetBETTER WYOMING ACTION RESEARCH INC: $30,000 over 1y, 28% of budgetSTEWARDSHIP UTAH: $30,000 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetKANSAS VALUES INSTITUTE: $27,125 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetAlaska Progressive Donor Table: $25,000 over 1y, 10.0% of budgetAlliance for a Better Utah Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetWESTERN STATES STRATEGIES: $23,500 over 2y, 4.8% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundNew Venture FundNorth FundA Better Big SkyAll Hands on Deck Net…State Leadership Proj…America VotesWestern Organization …Committee on StatesGlobal Impact Social …American Federation o…Tides Foundation
Sixteen Thirty FundDC55.7× affinity26 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · New Venture Fund · North Fund · A Better Big Sky · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · State Leadership Project · America Votes · Western Organization of Resource Councils Education Project · Committee on States · Global Impact Social Welfare Fund · American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees · Tides 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 Western Futures Fund Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Western Futures Fund Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 Western Futures Fund Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Western Futures Fund 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 46 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 Western Futures’ 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