How much did Conservation Lands Foundation grant in FY2025?

Environment$9.0MHuman Services$773kAnimals$736kEducation$690kRecreation & Sports$450kYouth Development$360kCommunity Improvement$210kArts & Culture$73kCivil Rights$40kOther$3.6M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

las vegasafter-school all-starsall-stars lascommondependsprotectedmiles

2019

engagerightswildernessbuildingenvironmentstewardsfnw

2020

san juanengagerightsresponsiblewildernessenvironmentoutreach

2021

archaeologicalawarenesspositiveleadershipengagerightsresponsible

2022

deschutesdreamsrockblmbelievedevelopmentourarchaeological

2023

blmdevelopmentourexperiencesmeaningfulconnectionincreasetrail

2025

socialtrailowyheechangewater wildlifewildernesssouthwest

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2025 · 53 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

Under $10k1 grant · $7k
$10k–50k34 grants · $657k
$50k–250k17 grants · $1.4M
$250k+1 grant · $410k

$25,000

Median grant

States reached

$11M

Total assets

Largest grants

Mojave Desert Land Trust$410,000
Transition Habitat Conservancy$225,000
Friends of the Inyo$155,000
Friends of the Desert Mountains$110,500
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance$108,500
CactusToCloud Institute$84,000
Friends of the Owyhee$83,500
Archaeology Southwest$80,000
Friends of Big Morongo Canyon Preserve$71,500
Dolores River Boating Advocates$70,000
Bears Ears Partnership$70,000
Friends of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks$70,000
Conserve Southwest Utah$60,000
Get Outdoors Nevada$55,000
Native American Land Conservancy$50,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $773k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13% — the area typically sits at 10%. 96% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$16M · 83 repeat orgs$370k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +68% since the first grant, against +46% for the ones you funded once.

83 repeat relationships — 53 still active in FY2025, 30 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$16M

$370k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+68%

+46%

Still filing today

86%

83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EnvironmentHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentAnimalsCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

FO
Friends of Cedar Mesa
9× · 2017–2025 · $740k · revenue +382%
AS
Archaeology Southwest
9× · 2017–2025 · $732k · revenue +58%
FO
Friends of the Inyo
9× · 2017–2025 · $687k · revenue +134%

Funded once

TR
Training Resources Environmengraduated
one grant, 2017 · $50k · revenue +43%
Natl Trust for Historic Pres
one grant, 2020 · $35k · revenue +4%
PC
Penn Center
one grant, 2017 · $30k · revenue -45%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Arizona Center for Nature Conservation

The arizona center for nature conservation (acnc) advances the stewardship and conservation of animals and their habitats while providing experiences that inspire people and motivate them to care for the natural world.

Animals

Santa Fe Forest Coalition

Educate the public on forest conservation issues in New Mexico

Environment

Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment

Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildands defends and restores cascadia's wild ecosystems in the forests, in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment

Utah Public Lands Alliance

Education

Sierra Foothill Conservancy

Protect, manage and preserve lands and wildlife having unique natural resources and cultural qualities within and near the foothills of the sierra nevada range.

Environment

Rio Bravo Restoration

Natural Resource Stewardship

Environment

Cuenca Los Ojos

Cuenca los ojos works to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the us/mexican borderlands through land protection, habitat restoration and wildlife reintroduction.

Environment

Northern California Regional Land Trust

Conservation of agricultural lands, open space, wildlife habitat and natural resources within butte, glenn, and tehama counties.

Environment

Glen Canyon Conservancy

Glen canyon conservancy is the philanthropic partner and cooperating association that supports and funds education, research, interpretation and visitor services within the public lands on the colorado plateau in northern arizona, southern…

—

Wild Arizona

Wild Arizonas mission is to protect, unite, and restore wild lands and waters across Arizona and beyond, for the enrichment and health of all generations, and to ensure Arizona's native plants and animals a lasting home in wild nature.

Environment

Ventana Wilderness Alliance

The mission of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance is to protect, preserve, and restore the wilderness qualities and biodiversity of the public lands within California's northern Santa Lucia Mountains and Big Sur coast.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Mexico Wilderness Alliance and the most unlike its peers is National Trust for Historic Preservation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 25 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/106

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,459

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.

05the grantee network

91 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

90/91

Grantees still filing

69/91

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Environment$9,034,000Other$3,903,539Human Services$772,500Animals$736,000Education$690,000Recreation & Sports$450,000Youth Development$360,000

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.

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.

Resources Legacy FundCA74.3× affinity37 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Resources Legacy Fund · The Wilderness Society · Western Conservation Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The Pew Charitable Trusts · National Forest Foundation · Wilburforce Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The New-Land Foundation Inc · National Park Foundation · Maki Foundation · Tortuga Charitable Foundation

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 organisation Conservation Lands Foundation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

4get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: FRIENDS & NEIGHBORS OF THE DESCHUTE.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

high risk

2 years of Form 990 filings, no recent filing.

Legal standing

medium risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 454986167 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on FRIENDS & NEIGHBORS OF THE DESCHUTE, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
FlagSustained operations— No recent filing on record.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 75% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Conservation Lands Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Conservation Lands Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

Conservation Lands Foundation

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

91 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Conservation Lands Foundation?

More from the funding graph

Conservation Lands Foundation

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

91 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Conservation Lands Foundation?

More from the funding graph