· Public charity
Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds
The organization has been formed for charitable, scientific, and educational purposes, with a particular focus on working to protect pa's water and watersheds.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k14 grants · $94k
- $10k–50k39 grants · $829k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $362k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TROUT UNLIMITED INC | $80,973 |
| WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $66,429 |
| WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY | $58,773 |
| GRANTS LESS THAN 500000 | $55,404 |
| CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY | $50,000 |
| PENNSYLVANIA COUNCIL OF TROUT UNLIM | $50,000 |
| MOUNTAIN WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC | $48,000 |
| WILDLANDS CONSERVANCY INC | $40,000 |
| AMERICAN RIVERS | $36,000 |
| PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL | $35,000 |
| EASTERN PA COALITION FOR ABANDONED | $34,845 |
| CLEARWATER CONSERVANCY OF CENTRAL P | $31,500 |
| WESTERN PA COALITION FOR ABANDONED | $29,680 |
| HERITAGE CONSERVANCY | $28,900 |
| TROUT UNLIMITED | $27,578 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–19, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
62 repeat relationships — 36 still active in FY2025, 26 since wound down; 22 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $388k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- WPWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY8× · 2018–2025 · $467k · revenue +20%
- TUTROUT UNLIMITED INC9× · 2017–2025 · $461k · revenue +133%
- CCCHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC6× · 2017–2025 · $263k · revenue +198%
Funded once
- WWECONSERVEPAgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $83k · revenue +94%
- GLGRANTS LESS THAN 5000one grant, 2023 · $59k
- HCHEADWATERS CHARITABLE TRUSTgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $34k · revenue +138%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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 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…
Our mission is to enrich the lives of all people in northeast ohio by conserving natural habitats, restoring the ecological value of our region's lands and waters, and expanding opportunities to connect people from all cultures to…
To preserve, steward, and connect people to the land in northern chester county pennsylvania. see additional information on schedule o.french & pickering is recognized as a leader in regional land conservation, the organization is…
Clean up waterways in the western pa region increase habitat for specific native wildlife
The Allegheny County Conservation District is an urban conservation district that engages and leads through partnerships, innovation, and implementation to conserve, promote, and improve Allegheny Countys natural resources.
Preserving and enhancing the scenic and environmental quality of the ecosystem of the chagrin river, lake erie and other ohio watersheds in a manner which assures a sustainable future for people, plants and animals.
Founded in 1995 to coordinate the completion of the great allegheny passage, a 150-mile non-motorized path connecting pittsburgh and cumberland, maryland, the great allegheny passage conservancy promotes the great allegheny passage and…
Earth conservancy is a nonprofit organization committed to the reclamation and return of over 16,000 acres of former coal company-owned land to the region. it collaborates with local communities, government agencies, education…
Conservation efforts to study and maintain high quality, clean water on portions of the mcmichael creek in monroe county, pa, and education programming in stream biology and ecology.
To promote, support, and sustain the stewardship, education and conservation activities undertaken by the lancaster county conservation district.
Promote soil & water conservation programs of pennsylvania's conservation districts
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlands Conservancy Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Foundation for Sustainable Forests Inc. 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.
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 30 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 9% 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.
103 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. 103 of the 128 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 WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds TROUT UNLIMITED INC ↗
- Who funds CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds WESTERN PA COALITION FOR ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION ↗
- Who funds PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds CLEAN STREAMS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds STREAM RESTORATION INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds JUNIATA COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds PENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE CLEARWATER CONSERVANCY OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds TUBMILL TROUT CLUB UNLIMITED ↗
- Who funds IUP RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds STEWARDS OF THE LOWER SUSQUEHANNA INC DBA LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVERKEEPER ASS ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds LYCOMING COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds SAINT FRANCIS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds WECONSERVEPA ↗
- Who funds SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds WATERKEEPERS CHESAPEAKE INC ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS COAL COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA COALITION FOR ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION ↗
- Who funds THREE RIVERS WATERKEEPER ↗
- Who funds FRACTRACKER ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE ↗
- Who funds Potomac Riverkeeper Network ↗
- Who funds NORTHCENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds AUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PA ↗
- Who funds PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY BROADCASTING CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Pennsylvania Trout Inc ↗
- Who funds FRENCH CREEK VALLEY CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds ALLEGHENY LAND TRUST ↗
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: Richard King Mellon Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Pittsburgh Foundation · The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment Inc · Pennsylvania Trout Inc · Community Foundation of Greater Johnstown · The Heinz Endowments · Pennsylvania Environmental Council Inc · Eqt Foundation · Hillman Family Foundations · C F Holdship Charitable Trust · Weconservepa
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 Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds 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.
- Center for Watershed Protection Inc — 64% of income from government
- Chesapeake Conservancy Inc — 27% of income from government
- Oyster Recovery Partnership Inc — 3% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds?
Find your warmest path to Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds 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.