Skip to content
National Association of Conservation Districts at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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…

$12M
Granted FY2025still arriving
240
Grants FY2025still arriving
53
States reached
$469k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$49MEmployment$13MCommunity Improvement$2.2MYouth Development$850kScience & Tech$729kFood & Nutrition$576kHuman Services$524kEducation$297kOther$0
02FY2025 · 240 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 240 grants below total $11,873,813, the rows itemized in this filing. The $12,164,335 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $290,522 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k33 grants · $255k
  • $10k–50k136 grants · $3.6M
  • $50k–250k66 grants · $6.3M
  • $250k+5 grants · $1.8M
$30,000
Median grant
53
States reached
$4.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF CD$468,750
UOG$405,237
THURSTON CONSERVATION DISTRICT$377,560
MORRISON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$266,147
MISSISSIPPI SWC COMMISSION$250,000
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION$233,750
LOWER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER SWCD$209,493
POPO AGIE CONSERVATION DISTRICT$187,500
VERMONT ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS$186,387
O'AHU RC&D COUNCIL$177,735
LASALLE SWCD$166,181
INLAND EMPIRE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT$149,983
LAKE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT$143,740
BLACKWATER SWCD$142,500
OHIO FED OF SWCD$137,183
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 79% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $531k → 15%MIDDLE NIOBRARA NRD: $230k → 12%MORRISON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $274k → 10%PENNSYLVANIA ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $202k → 12%NAPA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $270k → 9%TRINITY COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $229k → 17%LAKE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $281k → 17%O'AHU RC&D COUNCIL: $178k → 9%TEXAS STATE SWCD BOARD: $228k → 14%INDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $272k → 18%ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF CD: $469k → 18%NATIONAL ASSOC OF RC&D COUNCILS INC: $228k → 21%KANSAS ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $249k → 14%GLACIERLAND RC&D COUNCIL: $199k → 10%CONNECTICUT COUNCIL ON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION: $204k → 9%MECKLENBURG SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $266k → 10%GEORGIA ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $325k → 11%LOWER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER SWCD: $209k → 29%COLORADO ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $193k → 10%SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $233k → 9%THURSTON CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $378k → 9%ALASKA VILLAGE INITIATIVES: $378k → 10%POPO AGIE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $275k → 17%LASALLE SWCD: $166k → 19%NEW HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $270k → 7%MIDDLE NIOBRARA NRD: $198k → 12%MORRISON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $266k → 10%NAPA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $216k → 9%TEXAS STATE SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION BOARD: $204k → 14%INDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $198k → 18%KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DIST: $218k → 14%SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $189k → 9%ALASKA VILLAGE INITIATIVES: $166k → 10%POPO AGIE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $188k → 17%TEXAS STATE SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION BOARD: $200k → 14%RHODE ISLAND ASSOCIATION OF CD'S: $221k → 14%SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $164k → 9%THURSTON CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $195k → 9%POPO AGIE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $165k → 17%TEXAS SOIL AND WATER COMMISSION (5 DISTRICTS): $180k → 14%CONNECTICUT COUNCIL ON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION: $244k → 9%RHODE ISLAND ASSOCIATION OF CD'S: $199k → 14%RHODE ISLAND ASSOCIATION OF CD'S: $199k → 14%VERMONT ASSOCIATION OF CD: $296k → 9%RHODE ISLAND ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $174k → 14%MISSISSIPPI SWC COMMISSION: $250k → 23%VERMONT ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $186k → 9%VERMONT ASSOCIATION OF CD: $172k → 9%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.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
ME
VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$78M · 396 repeat orgs$2.3M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +62% since the first grant, against +34% for those funded once.

396 repeat relationships: 201 still active in FY2025, 195 since wound down; 32 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

396
54

Total granted

$78M
$1.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
+34%

Still filing today

9%
7%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $774k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24’25
EnvironmentFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyOther
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

  • TR
    The Rhode Island Association of Conservation Districts
    8× · 2018–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +710% · 44% of their budget
  • VA
    VERMONT ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +72%
  • AA
    ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $960k · revenue +847%

Funded once

  • DC
    DOUGLAS COUNTY CD
    one grant, 2017 · $100k
  • NC
    NATIONAL CONSERVATION FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $85k · revenue +65%
  • SS
    SARASOTA SWCD
    one grant, 2024 · $79k
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
Southeast Conservation District Employee Association

Conservation education and promotion

—
2
Kentucky Association of Conservation District Employees

Conservation education and promotion

Environment
3
Nd Natural Resources Conservation Trust

To promote the conservation of natural resources in the state of north dakota

Environment
4
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts

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

Environment
5
Montana Association of Conservation Districts

To heighten the public's awareness of conservation districts and their activities as well as to promote soil and water conservation.

—
6
North Central Conservation District Inc

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.

Environment
7
North Dakota Natural Resources Trust
—
8
Wiregrass Rc&D Council

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

Environment
9
International Conservation Caucus Network

To advance conservation governance through political will and to provide "on the ground" solutions to ensure sustained economic benefits while managing the earth's natural resource wealth for future generations.

Unclassified
10
Alabama Association of Conservation Districts Inc

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,…

Environment
11
Northwest Conservation District Inc

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…

Environment
12
Land Conservancy Inc
Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation; 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.
04the grantee network

44 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. 44 of the 482 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.

14
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
20
Early backer (in before they grew)
43/44
Grantees still filing
29/44
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

+181 more: $54,080,034 · Other+181 moreThe Rhode Island Association of Conservation Districts: $1,201,126 · EnvironmentThe Rhode Is…ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $960,198 · EnvironmentARIZONA ASSO…GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $956,345 · EnvironmentGEORGIA ASSO…NEW HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $669,724 · EnvironmentNEW HAMPSHIR…NEW MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVAT: $540,873 · EnvironmentNEW MEXICO A…GLACIERLAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCILE INC: $516,570 · EnvironmentGLACIERLAND …National Association of RC&D Councils: $504,767 · EnvironmentNational Ass…GOLDEN SANDS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INCORPORATED: $471,315 · EnvironmentGOLDEN SANDS…ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $328,301 · EnvironmentOAHU RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT: $316,534 · EnvironmentMAINE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $269,710 · Environment+3 more: $552,089 · Environment+3 moreINDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $804,468 · Food & NutritionARKANSAS ASSOCIATION OF: $186,371 · Food & NutritionNEVADA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $175,000 · Food & NutritionKANSAS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $946,454 · Community ImprovementAlaska Village Initiatives: $808,861 · Philanthropy
Other$54,080,034Environment$7,287,552Food & Nutrition$1,165,839Community Improvement$946,454Philanthropy$808,861

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetThe Rhode Island Association of Conservation Districts: $1,201,126 over 8y, 44% of budgetVERMONT ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $1,169,555 over 8y, 15% of budgetARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $960,198 over 6y, 11% of budgetGEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $956,345 over 7y, 22% of budgetKANSAS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $946,454 over 7y, 64% of budgetAlaska Village Initiatives: $808,861 over 6y, 27% of budgetINDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $804,468 over 6y, 53% of budgetNEW HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $669,724 over 7y, 44% of budgetOHIO FEDERATION OF SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $656,852 over 8y, 9.1% of budgetNEW MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVAT: $540,873 over 7y, 2.4% of budgetGLACIERLAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCILE INC: $516,570 over 7y, 12% of budgetNational Association of RC&D Councils: $504,767 over 5y, 35% of budgetGOLDEN SANDS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INCORPORATED: $471,315 over 8y, 13% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $456,513 over 6y, 7.3% of budgetALASKA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC: $328,301 over 8y, 3.0% of budgetOAHU RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT: $316,534 over 2y, 8.1% of budgetCOLORADO ASSOC OF CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $303,969 over 2y, 37% of budgetMAINE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $269,710 over 6y, 58% of budgetOREGON ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $253,282 over 7y, 39% of budgetFlorida Three Rivers Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc: $217,500 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetTYONEK TRIBAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $199,589 over 7y, 2.1% of budgetARKANSAS ASSOCIATION OF: $186,371 over 4y, 33% of budgetMISSISSIPPI ASSOCIATION OF CONSERV: $135,000 over 6y, 53% 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.

  • 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 GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS INC ↗
  • Who funds KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ↗
  • Who funds Alaska Village Initiatives ↗
  • Who funds INDIAN NATIONS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds NEW HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ↗
  • Who funds OHIO FEDERATION OF SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ↗
  • Who funds NEW MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVAT ↗
  • Who funds GLACIERLAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCILE INC ↗
  • Who funds National Association of RC&D Councils ↗
  • Who funds GOLDEN SANDS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INCORPORATED ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

National Fish and Wil…The Nature ConservancyCoalitions & Collabor…Bonneville Environmen…Greater Wisconsin Age…The Maryland Associat…California Fire Safe …American Farmland Tru…Rocky Mountain Elk Fo…First Nations Develop…Charlotte y Martin Fo…Resources Legacy Fund
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC41.1× affinity59 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization National Association of Conservation Districts funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Association of Conservation Districts. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 82%
  • Oregon Association of Conservation Districts: 82% of income from government
  • Vermont Association of Conservation Districts Inc: 35% 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)
1rely 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.

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 482 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 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 National Association of Conservation Districts’ 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