Skip to content
California Council of Land Trusts at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

California Council of Land Trusts

To conserve California's extraordinary land and water resources through a strong network of land trusts with one cohesive voice across urban and rural communities.

$235k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$125k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Environment$272k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $95k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $125k
$25,200
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Land Trust Alliance$125,000
Native American Land Conserv$25,500
Feather River Land Trust$25,500
No CA Regional Land Trust$25,200
Lake County Land Trust$19,297
San Benito Agr Land Trust$7,680
Sequoia Riverlands Trust$6,588
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 81% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: $6k → 6%San Benito Agr Land Trust: $8k → 7%BEAR YUBA LAND TRUST: $6k → 11%Native American Land Conserv: $26k → 11%CALIFORNIA FARMLAND TRUST: $6k → 12%Feather River Land Trust: $26k → 13%SIERRA FOOTHILL CONSERVANCY: $6k → 15%Lake County Land Trust: $19k → 17%SEQUOIA RIVERLANDS TRUST: $7k → 18%No CA Regional Land Trust: $25k → 18%Land Trust Alliance: $125k → 14%BEAR YUBA LAND TRUST: $5k → 11%Sequoia Riverlands Trust: $7k → 18%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.
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
Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust

The Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust works to protect and conserve agricultural lands, open space, and wildlife habitat in Yuba, Sutter, and Colusa counties for the benefit of current and future generations

—
2
Shasta Land Trust

Conserve the beauty, character, and diversity of significant lands in far northern california. currently shasta land trust holds conservation easements that permanently protect about 66,000 acres of land.

Environment
3
The Land Trust for Santa Barbara County

To conserve natural resources, agricultural land and open spaces for present and future generations.

Environment
4
Placer Land Trust

Placer Land Trust works with willing landowners and conservation partners to permanently protect and care for natural and agricultural lands in Placer County for current and future generations.

Environment
5
Golden State Land Conservancy Inc

Promote conservation easements and resource management plans that conserve agriculture lands, forestlands, wildlife habitat, open space, and other natural resources, in perpetuity.

Environment
6
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County

Land trust of santa cruz county (the organization) was incorporated in california as a not-for-profit corporation in 1978. the mission of the organization is to protect, care for, and connect all people to the vibrant natural and working…

Environment
7
Siskiyou Land Conservancy

The Siskiyou Land Conservancy is a state and federally approved non-profit organization that assists landowners who want to protect the natural values of their land, either through purchase or establishment of conservation easements.

Environment
8
Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance

At Yosemite Rivers Alliance, we unite conservation and community to protect and restore the three rivers that ?ow through the Yosemite Regionthe Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced.

—
9
John Muir Land Trust prev Muir Heritage Land Trust

The vitality of open spaces is essential to the health of our earth, air, water, native plants, and animals. Our goal is to ensure that the beauty, diversity, and fullness of our wild lands continue to enrich and sustain all generations of…

Environment
10
Ag Land Trust

It is the purpose of Ag Land Trust to assist in the preservation and protection of all productive and important agricultural, open space and historical lands in Monterey County (and adjacent areas). Such action will contribute derectly to…

Environment
11
California Council of Land Trusts

To conserve California's extraordinary land and water resources through a strong network of land trusts with one cohesive voice across urban and rural communities.

Environment
12
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northern California Regional Land Trust; the most unlike its peers is Native American Land Conservancy. 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

11 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
5/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LAND TRUST ALLIANCE INC: $125,000 · EnvironmentLAND TRUST ALLIANCE INCFEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST: $25,500 · EnvironmentFEATHER RIVER LAND TRUSTNative American Land Conservancy: $25,500 · EnvironmentNative American Land ConservancyNORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $25,200 · EnvironmentNORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LAND TRUSTLAKE COUNTY LAND TRUST ORGANIZATION: $19,297 · EnvironmentLAKE COUNTY LAND TRUST ORGANIZATIONSequoia Riverlands Trust: $13,465 · EnvironmentBear Yuba Land Trust: $11,600 · Environment+4 more: $26,880 · Environment+4 more
Environment$272,442

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 budgetLAND TRUST ALLIANCE INC: $125,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetFEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST: $25,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNative American Land Conservancy: $25,500 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetNORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $25,200 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetLAKE COUNTY LAND TRUST ORGANIZATION: $19,297 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetSequoia Riverlands Trust: $13,465 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBear Yuba Land Trust: $11,600 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetSAN BENITO AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST: $7,680 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetSierra Foothill Conservancy: $6,400 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: $6,400 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Pacific Forest & Wate…Land Trust Alliance I…Morgan Stanley Global…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Pacific Forest & Watershed Lands Stewardship CouncilCA17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Pacific Forest & Watershed Lands Stewardship Council · Land Trust Alliance Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 California Council of Land Trusts funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from California Council of Land Trusts. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    3report 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 11 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 California Council of Land Trusts’ 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