Skip to content
Nc Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Nc Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation Inc

To build capacity in and provide public relations and financial support to north carolina's 96 local soil and water conservation districts and their statewide association.

$637k
Granted FY2024still arriving
22
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
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$1.1MEducation$177kFood & Nutrition$12k
02FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 22 grants below total $294,896, the rows itemized in this filing. The $636,641 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $341,745 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k7 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k15 grants · $285k
$16,209
Median grant
1
States reached
$6.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CUMBERLAND SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$25,000
DAVIE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$24,150
COUNTY OF ANSON$23,870
WILKES SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$23,464
CALDWELL SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$21,280
GRANVILLE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$20,685
HARNETT SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$19,790
JOHNSTON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$18,900
CHEROKEE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$18,585
UNION SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$18,473
EDGECOMBE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$16,209
DAVIDSON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$15,537
LINCOLN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$15,536
ALLEGHANY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$12,910
NC ASSOCIATION SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION$10,186
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 11%. 65% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE: $28k → 8%UNION SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $18k → 7%NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SERVICES: $12k → 8%CHATHAM SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $194 → 9%LINCOLN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $16k → 9%JOHNSTON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $19k → 10%DURHAM SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $194 → 11%GRANVILLE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $21k → 11%DAVIE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $24k → 11%COLD MOUNTAIN NURSERY INC: $8k → 12%BUNCOMBE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $13k → 12%DAVIDSON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $16k → 13%HARNETT SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $20k → 13%NASH SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $9k → 15%CHEROKEE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $19k → 15%ALLEGHANY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $13k → 16%CUMBERLAND SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $25k → 16%CALDWELL SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $21k → 16%CHOWAN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $194 → 16%CLEVELAND SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $215 → 17%COUNTY OF WAYNE: $5k → 18%WILKES SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $23k → 19%DUPLIN COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT: $15k → 20%EDGECOMBE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $16k → 21%COUNTY OF ANSON: $24k → 22%ROANOKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC: $44k → 23%J-HAM FARMS & GRAIN INC: $13k → 26%THE WORKING LANDS TRUST INC: $27k → 8%BUNCOMBE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $194 → 12%PHINITE INC: $374k → 16%WILKES COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT: $12k → 19%DUPLIN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $6k → 20%ROANOKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC: $19k → 23%WORKING LANDS TRUST: $17k → 8%PHINITE INC: $67k → 16%DUPLIN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $194 → 20%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $161k → 8%PHINITE INC: $12k → 16%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $44k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $33k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $19k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY: $16k → 8%NC DEPT OF AGRICULTURE & CS: $6k → 8%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.
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.
$931k · 7 repeat orgs$352k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
8

Total granted

$931k
$91k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-47%
+30%

Still filing today

43%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 11% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $261k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementScience & TechOther
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

  • PI
    PHINITE INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $453k
  • NS
    NC STATE UNIVERSITY
    6× · 2017–2022 · $293k
  • RE
    ROANOKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $63k · revenue -66%

Funded once

  • CC
    CARBON CYCLE INSTITUTEgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $28k · revenue +30%
  • JF
    J-HAM FARMS & GRAIN INC
    one grant, 2018 · $13k
  • BC
    BUNCOMBE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION INCORPORATED
    one grant, 2019 · $13k
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
04the grantee network

4 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.

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 2024, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 4 of the 34 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
2/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PHINITE INC: $452,779 · OtherPHINITE INCNC STATE UNIVERSITY: $293,347 · OtherNC STATE UNIVERSITY+28 more: $376,006 · Other+28 moreTHE WORKING LANDS TRUST INC: $44,845 · EnvironmentNORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $25,531 · EnvironmentROANOKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC: $62,799 · Community ImprovementCARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE: $27,650 · Science & Tech
Other$1,122,132Environment$70,376Community Improvement$62,799Science & Tech$27,650

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetROANOKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC: $62,799 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetTHE WORKING LANDS TRUST INC: $44,845 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetCARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE: $27,650 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $25,531 over 3y, 2.9% 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 ROANOKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds THE WORKING LANDS TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds CARBON CYCLE INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ↗

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.

The Golden Leaf IncNorth Carolina Public…North Carolina Commun…Reach Out and Read Inc
The Golden Leaf IncNC17.3× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Golden Leaf Inc · North Carolina Public Health Association · North Carolina Community Foundation · Reach Out and Read Inc

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 Nc Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nc Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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, FY20–24
    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 34 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 Nc Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation’s 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