· Public charity
Connecticut Land Conservation Council Inc
Connecticut Land Conservation Council, Inc.s mission is to elevate and strengthen land conservation in Connecticut.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2023–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 13 grants below total $163,102 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $217,402 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $54,300 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k6 grants · $45k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $118k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| East Haddam Land Trust Inc | $23,777 |
| Salisbury Association Inc | $20,000 |
| Litchfield Land Trust Inc | $18,904 |
| Groton Open Space Association Inc | $18,000 |
| Greenwich Land Trust | $13,055 |
| Clinton Land Conservation Trust | $12,400 |
| The Nature Conservancy of CT | $12,000 |
| Great Meadows Conservation Trust | $9,247 |
| Roxbury Land Trust | $9,000 |
| Old Lyme Land Trust | $7,500 |
| Wyndham Land Trust Inc | $7,219 |
| Kent Land Trust | $6,000 |
| Killingworth Land Conservation Trust Inc | $6,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
None of your grants could be placed against low income need for this view.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The primary mission of Redding Land Trust is to preserve the natural resources of the Town of Redding, CT and to promote the scientific and educational study of local and natural resources, and to acquire, by gift or purchase, land or…
The Farmington Land Trust Inc protects open space in the town of Farmington CT through the acquisition of open space, stewardship of acquired land, education of the public about the importance of open space and advocacy that ensures…
Preserve the natural resources on the northern CT region including agricultural land and other ecologically significant open space.
Preservation of open space in watertown, ct; maintenance of owned and conserved properties and public education of enviromental issues.
To obtain lands through donation or purchase and to protect and preserve them. While preserving we are improving the sustainable of wildlife, water tables and overall quality of our natural habitat.
Land conservation and management
to acquire, preserve, and protect land of scenic, natural or historic value within the Town of Canton and surrounding environs. (see schedule O for full mission statement)
Conserving the beauty, rural character, and natural diversity of the Town of Salem, CT
Kestrel land trust conserves and cares for forests, farms, and riverways in the connecticut river valley of western massachusetts while nurturing an enduring love of the land
Land conservation
The princeton land trust was formed to preserve the natural beauty and rural character of the town of princeton.
The Land Conservancy of Ridgefield, Inc. ("the Land Conservancy"), founded in 1967, preserves and protects, for the general benefit of the public, Ridgefield, Connecticut's natural resources including land and water resources, the plant…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kent Land Trust Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Nature Conservancy. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 52 years old; the field is 23. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 15% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 7% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
20 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 20 of the 21 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds EAST HADDAM LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds AVALONIA LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds THE SALISBURY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds LITCHFIELD LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds GROTON OPEN SPACE ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE GREENWICH LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds CLINTON LAND CONSERVATION TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds NORFOLK LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds WARREN LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds Cornwall Conservation Trust Inc ↗
- Who funds MIDDLESEX LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds ASPETUCK LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds ROXBURY LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds OLD LYME LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds WYNDHAM LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds STEEP ROCK ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds KENT LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds KILLINGWORTH LAND CONSERVATION TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds BETHANY LAND TRUST INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The John T and Jane a Wiederhold Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Bafflin Foundation · Ibm International Foundation · The Summer Hill Foundation · Fields Pond Foundation Inc · The Connecticut Community Foundation · Aetna Foundation Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Connecticut Land Conservation Council Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- The Salisbury Association Inc — 54% of income from government
- Groton Open Space Association Inc — 50% of income from government
- Norfolk Land Trust Inc — 49% of income from government
- Cornwall Conservation Trust Inc — 30% of income from government
- Aspetuck Land Trust — 28% of income from government
- Avalonia Land Conservancy Inc — 21% of income from government
- Steep Rock Association Inc — 19% of income from government
- Wyndham Land Trust Inc — 1% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.