· Public charity
Natural Lands Trust Inc
Saves open space, cares for nature, and connects people to the outdoors.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 29 grants below total $1,382,917 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,631,096 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $3,248,179 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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k9 grants · $64k
- $10k–50k17 grants · $219k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $550,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $500,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| Berks Nature | $43,334 |
| Colebrook Railroad Preservation Trust | $16,343 |
| Heritage Conservancy Inc | $13,500 |
| Historic Trappe | $13,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $11,448 |
| National Audubon Society | $10,445 |
| New Garden Township | $10,000 |
| Riverfront North Partnership | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| Hispanic Association of Contractors & Enterprise | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 48% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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.
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.
7 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 27 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, 4% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.3M 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
- PHPOCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST7× · 2018–2024 · $404k · revenue +64%
- BNBERKS NATURE6× · 2019–2025 · $308k · revenue +96%
HUNTERDON LAND TRUST2× · 2020–2021 · $52k · revenue +106%
Funded once
- COCITY OF COATESVILLE PALMER PARK RESTORATIONone grant, 2020 · $162k
- EPExelon - PECO Open Spaceone grant, 2021 · $150k
- GVGREEN VALLEYS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIAone grant, 2018 · $35k · revenue -42%
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.
See schedule oper the bylaws of the delaware & lehigh national heritage corridor(which were updated by the merged board of the national canal musuem and the d&l), our mission is to work with government entities, non-profit organizations…
Land Conservation and Preservation.
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…
Saves open space, cares for nature, and connects people to the outdoors. (See schedule O)
To conserve and steward lands and waters of Westmoreland County that harbor ecological, cultural or recreational qualities to offer a healthier and more sustainable future for all.
To conserve the rural, natural, and cultural heritage of the new river region, protecting farms, forests, open spaces, and historic places.
The westmoreland conservancy is an accredited non-profit land trust located in murrysville about 20 miles east of pittsburgh in westmoreland county. the organization was founded in 1991, and has always been run by community volunteers. the…
The western pennsylvania conservancy protects and restores exceptional places to provide our region with clean waters and healthy forests, wildlife and natural areas for the benefit of present and future generations. the conservancy…
To serve as a steward for the natural and cultural communities in the upper Penns Creek Watershed. We seek to preserve and Honor the agricultural roots of Penns Valley by protecting and conserving its waters, farmland, forests and rural…
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Heritage Conservancy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Colebrookdale Railroad Preservation Trust. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
20 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. 20 of the 46 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 POCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds BERKS NATURE ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR POTTSTOWN EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds HUNTERDON LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds GREEN VALLEYS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds PRESERVATION ALLIANCE FOR GREATER PHILADELPHIA ↗
- Who funds ORGAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Colebrookdale Railroad Preservation Trust ↗
- Who funds HISTORIC TRAPPE ↗
- Who funds HERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds FRENCH AND PICKERING CREEKS CONSERVATION TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds COSACOSA ART AT LARGE INC ↗
- Who funds DELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Brandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art ↗
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: The William Penn Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc · The Philadelphia Foundation · Weconservepa · The Nature Conservancy · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc
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 Natural Lands Trust Inc 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.
- Hunterdon Land Trust — 48% 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 Natural Lands Trust Inc?
Find your warmest path to Natural Lands Trust Inc 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.