· 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 3 grants below total $16,677 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $51,638 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $34,961 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| OKLAHOMA GRAZING LANDS COALITION | $6,000 |
| ARKANSAS GRAZING LANDS COALITION | $5,577 |
| WYOMING WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION | $5,100 |
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 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 82% 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 +481% since the first grant, against +380% for the ones you 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k 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
- TGTEXAS GRAZING LAND COALITION INC2× · 2017–2020 · $21k · revenue +700%
- GIGRASSWORKS INC2× · 2019–2020 · $20k · revenue +481%
- QCQUIVIRA COALITION INC2× · 2019–2022 · $16k · revenue +212%
Funded once
- GUGRANTS UNDER 5000one grant, 2019 · $18k
- KEKARL EBELone grant, 2021 · $9k
- IGILLINOIS GRAZING LANDS COALITIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $8k · revenue +380%
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.
Protect and restore ecological balance to nebraska grasslands.
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…
To promote, manage, and oversee grazing outreach and education programs in Vermont.
To regenerate kansas grazing land resources through cooperative management, economics, ecology, production, education and technical assistance programs.
Works with farmers and ranchers to address water issues around the state impacting agriculture.
The c-agg multi-stakeholder coalition builds sustainable agriculture and climate change mitigation capacity that accelerates change across organizations, sectors and regions.
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…
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.
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…
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…
The foundation promotes the value of tallgrass prairies
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Louisiana Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative and 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.
8 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. 8 of the 15 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 TEXAS GRAZING LAND COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds GRASSWORKS INC ↗
- Who funds QUIVIRA COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA FORAGE AND GRAZING LANDS COALITION ↗
- Who funds ILLINOIS GRAZING LANDS COALITION ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA FORAGE AND GRASSLAND COUNC ↗
- Who funds LOUISIANA GRAZING LANDS CONSERVATION INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds WYOMING WOOL GROWERS ASSOC INC ↗
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization National Grazing Lands Coalition 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.
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.