Skip to content
Faye Gehl Conservation Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Private foundation

Faye Gehl Conservation Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2025.

Environment$75kFood & Nutrition$28kEducation$3kPhilanthropy$2k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$9.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SHELBURNE FARMS$1,000
PRACTICAL FARMERS$50
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 61% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%American Farmland Trust: $10k → 14%PRACTICAL FARMERS: $50 → 17%Waukesha County Land Conservancy: $11k → 5%Grassworks: $3k → 6%B Matthews Memorial Fund: $2k → 9%Gathering Waters: $2k → 10%Shelburne Farms: $10k → 10%American Farmland Trust: $10k → 14%Tall Pines Conservancy: $10k → 5%Gathering Waters Inc: $1k → 10%SHELBURNE FARMS: $6k → 10%American Farmland Trust: $5k → 14%TALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $5k → 5%GATHERING WATERS: $1k → 10%Shelburne Farms: $5k → 10%American Farmland Trust: $5k → 14%Tall Pines Conservancy: $5k → 5%Gathering Waters Inc: $500 → 10%SHELBURNE FARMS: $3k → 10%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $2k → 14%Tall Pines Conservancy: $5k → 5%Wisconsin Dairy Products Assoc: $500 → 10%SHELBURNE FARMS: $1k → 10%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $1k → 14%TALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $1k → 5%Tall Pines Conservancy: $1k → 5%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$89k · 4 repeat orgs$19k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +226% since the first grant, against +43% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$89k
$19k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+226%
+43%

Still filing today

100%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50 went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentFood & NutritionEducationOther
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

  • AF
    AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST
    6× · 2018–2024 · $33k · revenue +229%
  • TP
    TALL PINES CONSERVANCY
    6× · 2018–2024 · $27k · revenue +226%
  • SHELBURNE FARMS
    5× · 2018–2025 · $25k · revenue +50%

Funded once

  • WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC
    one grant, 2018 · $11k · revenue -19%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $3k · revenue +43%
  • GI
    GRASSWORKS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue +481%
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

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
Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association Incorporated

The mission of the wisconsin woodland owners association is to conserve and enhance the private woodlands of the state through the following actions: sustainably manage our woodlands with informed management plans that utilize best…

Environment
2
Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota

Support the development and enhancement of sustainable farming systems through farmer-to-farmer networking, innovation, demonstration, and education.

Food & Nutrition
3
Wisconsin Wetlands Association Inc

Wisconsin Wetlands Association is dedicated to the protection, restoration, and enjoyment of wetlands and associated ecosystems through science-based programs, education, and advocacy.

Environment
4
Natural Resource Development Association Inc

The natural resource development association supports policies that lead to proper, necessary, and conscientious resource development and conservation. by engaging community leaders, laborers, manufacturers, and job creators in the…

Environment
5
Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Inc

To protect, conserve, and enhance wisconsin's natural resources by advocating for and supporting county conservation efforts, for current and future generations.

Environment
6
Wisconsin Association of Agricultural Educators Inc

The corporation is organized exclusively for educational purposes, to improve and advance agricultural education efforts in the state of wisconsin at the secondary and post-secondary levels. programs and activities aim to provide…

—
7
Southern Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Dedicated to working with land owners to protect conservation-worthy land and natural resources of southern wisconsin.

Environment
8
Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.

Environment
9
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Inc

The wisconsin wildlife federation has a dual mission to engage in conservation education and to advocate for sound conservation policy.

Environment
10
Faye Gehl Conservation Foundation
Environment
11
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
12
Marbleseed Inc

Marbleseed educates, inspires, and empowers farmers to thrive in a sustainable, organic system of agriculture.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Gathering Waters Inc; the most unlike its peers is American Farmland Trust. 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

8 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. 8 of the 10 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $27,100 · EnvironmentTALL PINES CONSERVANCYSHELBURNE FARMS: $24,500 · EnvironmentSHELBURNE FARMSWAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $11,250 · EnvironmentWAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INCGATHERING WATERS INC: $4,000 · EnvironmentGATHERING WATERS INCAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $33,000 · Food & NutritionAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUSTGRASSWORKS INC: $2,500 · OtherB Matthews Memorial Fund: $2,000 · OtherWISCONSIN DAIRY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION INC: $500 · Other+1 more: $50 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $2,500 · Education
Environment$66,850Food & Nutrition$33,000Other$5,050Education$2,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $33,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $27,100 over 6y, 1.7% of budgetSHELBURNE FARMS: $24,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetGATHERING WATERS INC: $4,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWISCONSIN DAIRY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION INC: $500 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Faye Gehl Conservation Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Faye Gehl Conservation Foundation. 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 3%
  • Shelburne Farms: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report 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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Faye Gehl Conservation Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Faye Gehl Conservation Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 10 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Faye Gehl Conservation’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