Skip to content
Center for Natural Lands Management at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Center for Natural Lands Management

The mission of the CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT is (a) to conserve native species, their habitat and functioning ecosystems in perpetuity, (b) to own and/or manage lands in an ecologically beneficial manner consistent with local, state, and federal environmental laws and with science-based stewardship, (c) to promote the…

$207k
Granted FY2022
6
Grants FY2022
3
States reached
$101k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Environment$885kAnimals$395kOther$0
02FY2022 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k2 grants · $4k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $21k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $181k
$11,210
Median grant
3
States reached
$329M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE$101,332
ECOSTUDIES INSTITUTE$80,036
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES$11,210
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE$10,078
BIOSEARCH ASSOCIATES$2,466
INSITUTE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY$1,819
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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 60% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MISCELLANEOUS: $3k → 11%CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $101k → 12%WEST YOST INC: $69k → 16%OREGON METRO: $28k → 12%OREGON DEPT OF F&W: $70k → 14%INSTITUE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY: $40k → 18%CORE GOS LLC: $17k → 9%COLUMBIA LAND TRUST: $19k → 9%WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $136k → 9%SAN JUAN COUNTY LAND BANK: $2k → 10%WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT NATURAL RESOURCES: $21k → 13%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $13k → 6%CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $30k → 12%WEST YOST INC: $11k → 16%METRO: $15k → 12%OREGON DEPT OF F&W: $30k → 14%INSTITUE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY: $29k → 18%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $60k → 9%ECOSTUDIES INSTITUTE: $80k → 9%METRO: $5k → 12%OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $12k → 14%INSTITUE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY: $20k → 18%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $1k → 9%ECOSTUDIES INSTITUTE: $47k → 9%OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $10k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY: $15k → 18%OREGON DEPT OF F&W: $7k → 14%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $23k → 18%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $9k → 18%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $6k → 18%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $4k → 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.
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 31% of Center for Natural Lands Management’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 17% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 7%.

Center for Natural Lands Managementlessmore 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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 12 repeat orgs$108k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +136% since the first grant, against +40% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2022, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
5

Total granted

$1.2M
$108k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+136%
+40%

Still filing today

33%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
EnvironmentAnimalsOther
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

  • EI
    ECOSTUDIES INSTITUTE
    2× · 2021–2022 · $127k · revenue +410%
  • GL
    GREENBELT LAND TRUST
    5× · 2017–2021 · $117k · revenue +136%
  • IF
    INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY
    5× · 2017–2022 · $106k · revenue +82%

Funded once

  • UG
    US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
    one grant, 2018 · $66k
  • COLUMBIA LAND TRUSTgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $19k · revenue +40%
  • CG
    CORE GOS LLC
    one grant, 2018 · $17k
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
05the grantee network

5 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. 5 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
5/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Washington Dept Of Fish & Wildlife: $266,805 · OtherWashington Dept Of Fish & WildlifeCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE: $130,960 · OtherCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFEOREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $127,926 · OtherOREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFEWEST YOST INC: $79,902 · OtherWEST YOST INCUS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY: $66,092 · OtherUS GEOLOGICAL SURVEYUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $60,642 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONWASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $51,044 · OtherWASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCESOREGON ZOO: $47,933 · OtherOREGON ZOO+4 more: $26,760 · OtherECOSTUDIES INSTITUTE: $127,291 · EnvironmentECOSTUDIES INSTITUTEGREENBELT LAND TRUST: $116,778 · EnvironmentGREENBELT LAND TRUSTINSTITUTE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY: $105,817 · EnvironmentINSTITUTE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGYCOLUMBIA LAND TRUST: $19,261 · EnvironmentAmerican Bird Conservancy: $55,992 · Animals
Other$858,064Environment$369,147Animals$55,992

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetECOSTUDIES INSTITUTE: $127,291 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetGREENBELT LAND TRUST: $116,778 over 5y, 2.7% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY: $105,817 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetAmerican Bird Conservancy: $55,992 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetCOLUMBIA LAND TRUST: $19,261 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

  • Who funds ECOSTUDIES INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds GREENBELT LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED ECOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds American Bird Conservancy ↗
  • Who funds COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ↗

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.

National Fish and Wil…The Nature ConservancyMeyer Memorial TrustThe Oregon Community …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC18.7× affinity7 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Meyer Memorial Trust · The Oregon Community Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Center for Natural Lands Management funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Center for Natural Lands Management. 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 99%
  • Institute for Applied Ecology: 99% of income from government
  • Greenbelt Land Trust: 31% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
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.

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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $5k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2022, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Center for Natural Lands Management’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