Skip to content

· Public charity

National Grazing Lands Coalition

Provide voluntary ecologically and economically sound management of all grazing lands for their adaptive uses and multiple benefits to the environment and society through science-based technical assistance, research, and education.

$52k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Environment$112kFood & Nutrition$64kEmployment$45kHealth$16kCommunity Improvement$12kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $16,677, the rows itemized in this filing. The $51,638 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $34,961 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.
$5,577
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OKLAHOMA GRAZING LANDS COALITION$6,000
ARKANSAS GRAZING LANDS COALITION$5,577
WYOMING WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION$5,100
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 82% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%ON PASTURE: $30k → 15%KARL EBEL: $9k → 13%THE MATRIX ASSESSMENT GROUP: $25k → 16%Quivera Coalition: $10k → 12%OKLAHOMA GRAZING LANDS COALITION: $6k → 16%SOUTH CAROLINA FORAGE & GRAZING LAN: $10k → 16%ARKANSAS GRAZING LANDS COALITION: $6k → 15%GRASSWORK: $10k → 6%ILLINOIS GLCI: $8k → 11%Bridgeway Collaborative: $7k → 18%VFGC: $6k → 21%WYOMING WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION: $5k → 11%GRANITE STATE GRAZIERS: $7k → 7%ON PASTURE: $20k → 15%THE MATRIX ASSESSMENT GROUP: $20k → 16%QUIVIRA COALITION: $6k → 12%SOUTH CAROLINA FORAGE & GRAZI: $6k → 16%GRASSWORKS: $10k → 6%ON PASTURE: $20k → 15%ON PASTURE: $7k → 15%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

NH
IL
WI
WY
VA
AZ
NM
AR
SC
OK
MS
TX
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.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$195k · 6 repeat orgs$72k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +481% since the first grant, against +380% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$195k
$56k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+481%
+380%

Still filing today

67%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • TG
    TEXAS GRAZING LAND COALITION INC
    2× · 2017–2020 · $21k · revenue +700%
  • GI
    GRASSWORKS INC
    2× · 2019–2020 · $20k · revenue +481%
  • QC
    QUIVIRA COALITION INC
    2× · 2019–2022 · $16k · revenue +212%

Funded once

  • GU
    GRANTS UNDER 5000
    one grant, 2019 · $18k
  • KE
    KARL EBEL
    one grant, 2021 · $9k
  • IG
    ILLINOIS GRAZING LANDS COALITIONgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $8k · revenue +380%
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
Nebraska Grazing Lands Coalition

Protect and restore ecological balance to nebraska grasslands.

Community Improvement
2
American Grassfed Association

Provides certification program for grassfed producers, communicates the value of grassfedproducts to consumers, chefs, and the media.we serve as a resource for information and advocate for positive change in policy for pasture based…

Community Improvement
3
Vermont Grass Farmers Association

To promote, manage, and oversee grazing outreach and education programs in Vermont.

Environment
4
Kansas Grazing Lands Coalition Inc

To regenerate kansas grazing land resources through cooperative management, economics, ecology, production, education and technical assistance programs.

Food & Nutrition
5
Colorado Ag Water Alliance

Works with farmers and ranchers to address water issues around the state impacting agriculture.

Environment
6
Coalition On Agricultural Greenhouse Gases

The c-agg multi-stakeholder coalition builds sustainable agriculture and climate change mitigation capacity that accelerates change across organizations, sectors and regions.

—
7
North Dakota Private Grazing Lands Coalition

The ndglc is a non-profit organization that believes through voluntary actions, respect for private property rights, and providing education on the values and multiple benefits of well managed grazing resources, the goals of promoting the…

Environment
8
International Grassland Congress

Promotes interchange of information on all aspects of natural and cultivated grasslands and forage crops for the benefit of mankind, including sustained development, food production and the maintenance of biodiversity.

Civil Rights
9
Buffalo Nations Grasslands Alliance

The Buffalo Nations Grasslands Alliance's mission is to ensure that the Native nations in the US portion of the Northern Great Plains have the technical and financial resources to plan and act on the vision for their traditional lands and…

Environment
10
Ag Technology and Environmental Stewardship Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
11
Coastal Prairie Grazing Lands Coalition

Ensure that the owners and managers of our private grazing lands have available to them the knowledge and expert technical assistance necessary to implement available technologies for conservation management of the private grazing lands…

Environment
12
Grassland Heritage Foundation

The foundation promotes the value of tallgrass prairies

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Louisiana Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative; the most unlike its peers is Virginia Forage and Grassland Counc. 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 15 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
8/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ON PASTURE: $77,600 · OtherON PASTURETHE MATRIX ASSESSMENT GROUP: $45,000 · OtherTHE MATRIX ASSESSMENT GROUPGRASSWORKS INC: $20,000 · OtherGRASSWORKS INCGRANTS UNDER 5000: $18,322 · OtherGRANTS UNDER 5000SOUTH CAROLINA FORAGE AND GRAZING LANDS COALITION: $15,000 · OtherSOUTH CAROLINA FORAGE AND GRAZING LANDS COALITIONKARL EBEL: $9,354 · Other+5 more: $31,505 · Other+5 moreQUIVIRA COALITION INC: $15,725 · EnvironmentQUIVIRA COAL…ILLINOIS GRAZING LANDS COALITION: $7,531 · EnvironmentILLINOIS GRA…LOUISIANA GRAZING LANDS CONSERVATION INITIATIVE: $5,577 · EnvironmentLOUISIANA GR…TEXAS GRAZING LAND COALITION INC: $21,233 · Community ImprovementTEXAS GRA…
Other$216,781Environment$28,833Community Improvement$21,233

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 budgetTEXAS GRAZING LAND COALITION INC: $21,233 over 2y, 13% of budgetQUIVIRA COALITION INC: $15,725 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetVIRGINIA FORAGE AND GRASSLAND COUNC: $6,205 over 1y, 7.9% of budgetLOUISIANA GRAZING LANDS CONSERVATION INITIATIVE: $5,577 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetWYOMING WOOL GROWERS ASSOC INC: $5,100 over 1y, 1.0% 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 National Grazing Lands Coalition funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Grazing Lands Coalition. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report 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.

    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 15 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on National Grazing Lands Coalition’s filings →

    More from the funding graph