Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Conservation Trust for North Carolina

Ctnc conserves land in ways that inspire and enable people to build resilient, just communities.

$90k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.

Environment$12MCommunity Improvement$53kYouth Development$20k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 5 grants below total $84,530 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $89,530 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $5,000 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $78k
$19,893
Median grant
1
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Freedom Org$20,000
Foothills Conservancy of NC$20,000
Conserving Carolinas$19,893
Blue Ridge Conservancy$17,683
Mainspring Conservation Trust$6,954
02The need
03

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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 98% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Manning Fulton: $74k → 8%Tar River Land Conservancy: $4.8M → 11%Association for the Preservation of the Eno River Value Inc: $247k → 11%North Carolina Coastal Land Trust: $34k → 12%Conserving Carolina: $40k → 12%Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy: $51k → 12%Mainspring Conservation Trust: $28k → 12%Foothills Conservancy of NC: $20k → 13%Pacolet Area Conservancy Inc: $15k → 13%The Conservation Fund: $100k → 13%Wake Forest University: $45k → 15%Three Rivers Land Trust: $20k → 15%Conetoe Family Life Center: $20k → 20%Freedom Org: $20k → 21%Blue Ridge Conservancy: $39k → 21%The Conservation Fund: $19k → 7%Manning Fulton: $74k → 8%Tar River Land Conservancy: $1.2M → 11%Association for the Preservation of the Eno River Value Inc: $111k → 11%Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy: $29k → 12%Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy: $20k → 12%Mainspring Conservation Trust: $18k → 12%Blue Ridge Conservancy: $34k → 21%Manning Fulton: $37k → 8%Tar River Land Conservancy: $588k → 11%Association for the Preservation of the Eno River Value Inc: $102k → 11%Conserving Carolina: $24k → 12%Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy: $20k → 12%Blue Ridge Conservancy: $28k → 21%NC State University: $18k → 8%Tar River Land Conservancy: $75k → 11%Association for the Preservation of the Eno River Value Inc: $39k → 11%Conserving Carolinas: $20k → 12%Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy: $20k → 12%Tar River Land Conservancy: $52k → 11%Triangle Land Conservancy: $662k → 11%Conserving Carolina: $15k → 12%Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy: $20k → 12%Highlands - Cashiers Land Trust: $22k → 12%Triangle Land Conservancy: $461k → 11%Highlands-Cashiers Land Trust: $18k → 12%Blue Ridge Conservancy: $18k → 21%Durham Soil & Water Conservation District: $360k → 11%Triangle Land Conservancy: $198k → 11%Triangle Land Conservancy: $143k → 11%Triangle Land Conservancy: $140k → 11%Piedmont Conservation Council: $68k → 11%Piedmont Conservation Council: $42k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 linein 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 — 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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$11M · 18 repeat orgs$510k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +105% since the first grant, against +49% for the ones you funded once.

18 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
8

Total granted

$11M
$490k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+105%
+49%

Still filing today

83%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationYouth DevelopmentCommunity ImprovementOther

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

  • TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY INC
    5× · 2017–2022 · $1.6M · revenue +528%
  • EC
    Ellerbee Creek Watershed Association
    5× · 2017–2021 · $781k · revenue +105%
  • ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE ENO RIVER VALLEY INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $499k · revenue +160%

Funded once

  • DS
    Durham Soil & Water Conservation District
    one grant, 2018 · $360k
  • WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2024 · $45k · revenue +10%
  • CF
    CONETOE FAMILY LIFE CENTER INC
    one grant, 2024 · $20k · revenue 0%

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.

1
Naturaland Trust

Performing activities pursuant to the maintenance and preservation of natural areas for the benefit of the public

Environment
2
New River Land Trust

To conserve the rural, natural, and cultural heritage of the new river region, protecting farms, forests, open spaces, and historic places.

Environment
3
Davidson Lands Conservancy Inc

The mission of the Davidson Lands Conservancy is to protect local lands and natural resources, connect lives to nature, and promote a conservation ethic. The Conservancy advances its work through four conservation programs or pillars: land…

Environment
4
Lakes Region Conservation Trust

The mission of the Organization is the conservation of the natural resources of the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, the preservation of wildlife habitat, the stewardship of lands that define the character of the region and its quality of…

Environment
5
Mountain Conservation Trust of Georgia Inc

To promote permanent conservation of the natural resources and scenic beauty of the mountains and foothills of north georgia through land protection, collaborative partnerships and education.

Environment
6
Congaree Land Trust

The congaree land trust was established to promote voluntary conservation of scenic lands, open spaces, farms, forests, natural areas and significant habitats in central south carolina.

Environment
7
Lula Lake Land Trust

Lula Lake Land Trust is dedicated to the preservation of lands located within the Rock Creek watershed on Lookout Mountain. The mission of Lula Lake Land Trust is to preserve the natural and historic landscapes surrounding Rock Creek and…

Philanthropy
8
Conservation Trust for North Carolina

Ctnc conserves land in ways that inspire and enable people to build resilient, just communities. we carry out our mission in collaboration with other conservation organizations and the communities we serve. our goal is to lessen the…

Environment
9
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
10
Central Pennsylvania Conservancy Inc

The mission of Central Pennsylvania Conservancy (CPC) is to acquire, preserve, and protect local land and natural resources in a five-county, South-Central PA region. Our vision is to create a local network of permanently protected and…

Environment
11
Land Conservancy of Ridgefield Inc

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…

Environment
12
Lowcountry Land Trust Inc

To protect land and water forever, nurture relationships between people and place, and connect conservation to community.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Three Rivers Land Trust Inc and the most unlike its peers is Wake Forest University. 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 36 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number26%0%<5yr16%5%5–10yr20%0%10–20yr14%45%20–35yr12%40%35–55yr12%10%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value26%0%<5yr16%0%5–10yr20%0%10–20yr14%73%20–35yr12%26%35–55yr12%0%55yr+

The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% 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 15% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/28
the rest of the field
15%
7,957/53,152

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.

04the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 27 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/23
Grantees still filing
18/23
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

TAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCY — $6,710,856 · EnvironmentTAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCYTRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY INC — $1,604,839 · EnvironmentTRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY INCEllerbee Creek Watershed Association — $780,859 · EnvironmentEllerbee Creek Watershed AssociationASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE ENO RIVER VALLEY INC — $498,593 · Environment+13 more — $1,352,872 · Environment+13 moreDurham Soil & Water Conservation District — $360,000 · OtherManning Fulton — $184,781 · OtherStrategic Partners Solutions LLC — $67,083 · OtherNC STATE UNIVERSITY — $33,000 · OtherHighlands Biological Foundation Inc — $30,697 · Other+1 more — $15,000 · OtherWAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY — $44,565 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITY — $13,000 · EducationCONETOE FAMILY LIFE CENTER INC — $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentFREEDOM ORG — $20,000 · Community Improvement
Environment$10,948,019Other$690,561Education$57,565Youth Development$20,000Community Improvement$20,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCY — $6,710,856 over 5y, 54% of budgetTRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY INC — $1,604,839 over 5y, 16% of budgetEllerbee Creek Watershed Association — $780,859 over 5y, 24% of budgetASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE ENO RIVER VALLEY INC — $498,593 over 4y, 18% of budgetMainspring Conservation Trust Inc — $232,226 over 8y, 2.3% of budgetFOOTHILLS CONSERVANCY OF NORTH CAROLINA INC — $227,900 over 7y, 2.0% of budgetConserving Carolina — $152,754 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetBLUE RIDGE CONSERVANCY — $150,117 over 7y, 1.3% of budgetSouthern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy — $139,875 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION — $118,750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPIEDMONT LAND CONSERVANCY — $116,200 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetPIEDMONT CONSERVATION COUNCIL INC — $110,000 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetWAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY — $44,565 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA COASTAL LAND TRUST — $43,600 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetHighlands Biological Foundation Inc — $30,697 over 2y, 5.0% of budgetHighlands-Cashiers Land Trust Inc — $24,350 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetCONETOE FAMILY LIFE CENTER INC — $20,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetFREEDOM ORG — $20,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetPACOLET AREA CONSERVANCY INC — $15,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY — $13,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE LAND TRUST INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCatawba Lands Conservancy — $7,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budget
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.

North Carolina Commun…The Cannon Foundation…The Conservation Fund…Foundation for the Ca…Duke Energy FoundationSteven C Leuthold Fam…The Nature ConservancyNorth Carolina Native…National Fish and Wil…The Community Foundat…Triangle Community Fo…Open Space Institute …
North Carolina Community FoundationNC26.4× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: North Carolina Community Foundation · The Cannon Foundation Inc · The Conservation Fund a Nonprofit Corporation · Foundation for the Carolinas · Duke Energy Foundation · Steven C Leuthold Family Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · North Carolina Native Plant Society · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Community Foundation of Western North Carolina Inc · Triangle Community Foundation Inc · Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc

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 Conservation Trust for North Carolina 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
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%your share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 27 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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