· Public charity
National Association of Conservation Districts
See schedule othe goals of the organization are to: 1) represent districts as their national voice on conservation issues; 2) provide useful information to conservation districts and their state associations; 3) build partnerships with federal and state agencies and other organizations in order to carry out district priorities and…
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 86% of NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k8 grants · $57k
- $10k–50k126 grants · $3.8M
- $50k–250k117 grants · $11M
- $250k+7 grants · $2.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS | $531,048 |
| ALASKA VILLAGE INITIATIVES | $377,901 |
| GEORGIA ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS | $324,584 |
| NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION | $295,000 |
| LAKE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT | $280,733 |
| POPO AGIE CONSERVATION DISTRICT | $275,000 |
| MECKLENBURG SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT | $266,170 |
| KANSAS ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS | $248,753 |
| CONNECTICUT COUNCIL ON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION | $244,145 |
| SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT | $232,500 |
| TRINITY COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT | $229,306 |
| NATIONAL ASSOC OF RC&D COUNCILS INC | $228,414 |
| PENNSYLVANIA ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS | $202,457 |
| GLACIERLAND RC&D COUNCIL | $198,653 |
| INDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE | $198,211 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% of your 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +72% since the first grant, against +55% for the ones you funded once.
353 repeat relationships — 196 still active in FY2024, 157 since wound down; 59 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.9M 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
- TRThe Rhode Island Association of Conservation Districts7× · 2018–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +710% · 44% of their budget
- VAVERMONT ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC7× · 2018–2024 · $983k · revenue +72%
- AAARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC5× · 2020–2024 · $885k · revenue +847%
Funded once
- DCDOUGLAS COUNTY CDone grant, 2017 · $100k
- NCNATIONAL CONSERVATION FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $85k · revenue +55%
- WCWASHAKIE COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICTone grant, 2018 · $56k
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.
To promote the conservation of natural resources in the state of north dakota
To heighten the public's awareness of conservation districts and their activities as well as to promote soil and water conservation.
To advane the conservation and orderly development of Land, Water, and other natural resources in California and to create statewide awareness of the urgency for conserving and developing California's natural resources
Conservation education and promotion
Water & soil conservation
The alabama association of conservation districts (aacd) is the unified voice of alabama's 67 conservation districts. organized as a 501(c)3, aacd works in cooperation with the alabama soil & water conservation committee, federal, state,…
Conservation education and promotion
To provide leadership and take initiatives for locally led conservation with the goal to protect soil, water and other natural resources of north central connecticut.
To develop natural and human resources to furher conservation for the benefit of the general public To promote soil and water conservation To develop the natural resources in a 10 county area of Alabama
Northwest conservation district works to conserve local natural resources by delivering technical services and educational programs. we focus on sustainable resource and energy use, promote ecosystem planning, watershed and open space…
Agriculture resource conservation. To provide conservation, protection, development, and utilization fo natural and human resources. To enhance the economic and social well-being of people and provide enrichment and
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Vermont Association of Conservation Districts Inc and the most unlike its peers is Florida Three Rivers Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc. 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 30 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) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
40 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. 40 of the 450 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 The Rhode Island Association of Conservation Districts ↗
- Who funds VERMONT ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC ↗
- Who funds KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC ↗
- Who funds INDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Alaska Village Initiatives ↗
- Who funds NEW HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ↗
- Who funds NEW MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVAT ↗
- Who funds OHIO FEDERATION OF SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ↗
- Who funds GLACIERLAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCILE INC ↗
- Who funds GOLDEN SANDS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 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: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Coalitions & Collaboratives Inc · Bonneville Environmental Foundation · Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources Inc · The Maryland Association of Soil Conservation Districts Incorporated · California Fire Safe Council Inc · American Farmland Trust · Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Inc · First Nations Development Institute · Charlotte y Martin Foundation-Ima · Resources Legacy Fund
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 National Association of Conservation Districts 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.
- Oregon Association of Conservation Districts — 82% of income from government
- Vermont Association of Conservation Districts Inc — 35% 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.