Skip to content
Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc

Osilt supports osi's mission to protect land for clean drinking water, public recreation, healthy communities, and wildlife habitat; and to conserve intact forests and floodplains that capture and store carbon and protect against increasingly dangerous weather events.

$9.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
36
Grants FY2024still arriving
11
States reached
$1.5M
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$36MRecreation & Sports$7.7MEducation$271kArts & Culture$266kHousing & Shelter$258kCommunity Improvement$93kFood & Nutrition$56kAnimals$50kOther$0
02FY2024 · 36 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 36 grants below total $5,592,971, the rows itemized in this filing. The $9,932,882 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,339,911 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 $10k5 grants · $35k
  • $10k–50k16 grants · $331k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+5 grants · $4.2M
$35,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$448M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEW CITY PARKS INC$1,498,818
NATURAL LANDS TRUST INC$1,395,526
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY$495,000
PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION$400,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$381,424
NEW JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION$224,493
THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF NEW JERSEY$177,310
BULL CREEK COMMON LANDS INC$120,000
FRIENDS OF COASTAL SOUTH CAROLINA$100,000
SOMERSET WOODS TRUSTEES$100,000
OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC$92,762
FRENCH AND PICKERING CREEKS CONSERVATION TRUST INC$65,459
THE CLEARWATER CONSERVANCV OF CENTRAL PENNSVLVANIA INC$61,850
LAND TRUST ALLIANCE$60,000
YMCA OF COASTAL CAROLINA$54,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY24–24, $68k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%YMCA OF COASTAL CAROLINA: $54k → 13%VERMONT RIVER CONSERVANCY INC: $14k → 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

ME
VT
NH
MT
NY
MA
PA
NJ
CA
VA
MD
NM
TN
NC
SC
DC
AL
GA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 15% of Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Open Space Institute Land Trust Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$30M · 51 repeat orgs$8.5M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +54% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

51 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2024, 33 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

51
76

Total granted

$30M
$7.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+23%

Still filing today

96%
74%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.5M 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
EnvironmentRecreation & SportsCommunity ImprovementArts & CulturePhilanthropyPublic BenefitOther
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

  • TL
    TENNGREEN LAND CONSERVANCY
    6× · 2017–2023 · $2.4M · revenue +80% · 56% of their budget
  • NL
    Natural Lands Trust Inc
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +123%
  • THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
    4× · 2017–2021 · $1.7M · revenue +40%

Funded once

  • LM
    LAMAR MOUNDS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $1.3M
  • SC
    SOUTH CAROLINA FORESTRY COMMISSION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $700k
  • SL
    Southeast Land Trust of New Hampshire
    one grant, 2017 · $459k · revenue +23%
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
Royal River Conservation Trust

The royal river conservation trust (rrct) is a regional land trust working primarily in seven maine municipalities. the trust owns,cares for, and stewards land and conservation easements to protect land and water resources for the general…

Environment
2
Dutchess Land Conservancy Inc

Dutchess land conservancy (dlc) is dedicated to preserving the scenic, agricultural and environmental resources of dutchess county, new york, and the surrounding area. dlc, as a private non-profit land conservation organization, carries…

Environment
3
Montgomery County Lands Trust Inc

Land Conservation and Preservation.

Environment
4
Northcoast Regional Land Trust

Northcoast regional land trust is dedicated to the protection of working landscapes, farms, forests and grazing lands, and to the preservation and protection of land for its natural, educational, scenic and historic values.

Food & Nutrition
5
Wildlands Trust Inc

The wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…

Environment
6
West Creek Conservancy

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…

Environment
7
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
8
Alford Land Trust Inc

Open Space Preservation

Environment
9
Placer Land Trust

Placer Land Trust works with willing landowners and conservation partners to permanently protect and care for natural and agricultural lands in Placer County for current and future generations.

Environment
10
Whatcom Land Trust

The mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.

Environment
11
Land Conservancy of Ridgefield Inc

The Land Conservancy's vision is a beautiful, historic New England town rich in diverse wildlife, scenic beauty, and natural resources that will enhance the lives of its citizens. These goals are accomplished through:* Research:…

Environment
12
Central Pennsylvania Conservancy Inc

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…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlands Conservancy Inc; the most unlike its peers is South Pittsburg Area Revitalization Quest. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

128 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 128 of the 147 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.

11
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
39
Early backer (in before they grew)
124/128
Grantees still filing
83/128
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $2,046,625 · EnvironmentNEW JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATIONNatural Lands Trust Inc: $1,826,954 · EnvironmentNatural Lands Trust IncTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $1,685,500 · EnvironmentTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATIONTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF NEW JERSEY: $1,439,263 · EnvironmentTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF NEW JERSEYDELAWARE HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY: $1,294,700 · EnvironmentDELAWARE HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCYNATURAL LANDS TRUST UDECL 123060: $1,048,017 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $1,012,345 · EnvironmentConserving Carolina: $759,476 · Environment+79 more: $10,951,601 · Environment+79 moreTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $6,652,102 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYNATURAL HERITAGE TRUST: $4,149,819 · OtherNATURAL HERITAGE TRUSTLAMAR MOUNDS INC: $1,250,000 · OtherLAMAR MOUNDS INCSOUTH CAROLINA FORESTRY COMMISSION: $700,000 · Other+38 more: $3,285,908 · Other+38 moreNEW CITY PARKS INC: $2,648,198 · Recreation & SportsNEW CITY PARKS…TENNGREEN LAND CONSERVANCY: $2,386,907 · Recreation & SportsTENNGREEN LAND…NEW JERSEY BICYCLE COALITION INC DBA D/B/A NEW JERSEY BIKE & WALK COALITION: $377,883 · Recreation & SportsNEW JERSEY BIC…+4 more: $150,000 · Recreation & SportsSoutheast Land Trust of New Hampshire: $459,470 · PhilanthropyLULA LAKE LAND TRUST: $90,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $7,500 · PhilanthropyWildlife Conservation Society: $206,600 · AnimalsTHE POUGHKEEPSIE-HIGHLAND RAILROAD: $100,000 · Arts & CultureTHE FORT TICONDEROGA ASSOCIATION: $90,000 · Arts & CultureBrandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art: $15,000 · Arts & CultureTHE OLANA PARTNERSHIP: $100,000 · Community ImprovementSOUTH PITTSBURG AREA REVITALIZATION QUEST: $20,000 · Community ImprovementLAND IN COMMON INC: $15,000 · Community ImprovementREGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION INC: $7,965 · Community Improvement
Environment$22,064,481Other$16,037,829Recreation & Sports$5,562,988Philanthropy$556,970Animals$206,600Arts & Culture$205,000Community Improvement$142,965

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $6,652,102 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetNATURAL HERITAGE TRUST: $4,149,819 over 4y, 14% of budgetNEW CITY PARKS INC: $2,648,198 over 2y, 45% of budgetTENNGREEN LAND CONSERVANCY: $2,386,907 over 6y, 56% of budgetNEW JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $2,046,625 over 6y, 10% of budgetNatural Lands Trust Inc: $1,826,954 over 3y, 6.1% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $1,685,500 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF NEW JERSEY: $1,439,263 over 8y, 7.7% of budgetDELAWARE HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY: $1,294,700 over 3y, 19% of budgetNATURAL LANDS TRUST UDECL 123060: $1,048,017 over 5y, 10% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $1,012,345 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetConserving Carolina: $759,476 over 3y, 3.2% of budgetFOOTHILLS LAND CONSERVANCY: $725,438 over 3y, 10% of budgetWILDLANDS CONSERVANCY INC: $552,759 over 3y, 6.0% of budgetNORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION: $524,999 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetLoon Echo Land Trust Inc: $519,285 over 8y, 15% of budgetWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY: $495,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC: $464,239 over 7y, 4.0% of budgetTHE POTOMAC CONSERVANCY INC: $450,000 over 1y, 56% of budgetWESTERN FOOTHILLS LAND TRUST: $445,170 over 5y, 19% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA COASTAL LAND TRUST: $409,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetNORTH BRANCH LAND TRUST: $406,165 over 2y, 33% of budgetNEW JERSEY BICYCLE COALITION INC DBA D/B/A NEW JERSEY BIKE & WALK COALITION: $377,883 over 4y, 63% of budgetRANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INC: $365,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetTHE TENNESSEE RIVER GORGE TRUST INC: $360,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetKESTREL LAND TRUST: $329,300 over 2y, 35% of budgetTHE LAND TRUST FOR TENNESSEE INC: $323,874 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetVERMONT LAND TRUST INC: $305,350 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetTHREE RIVERS LAND TRUST INC: $268,764 over 3y, 5.4% of budgetBERKS NATURE: $265,000 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetLAND TRUST ALLIANCE INC: $265,000 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetFRENCH AND PICKERING CREEKS CONSERVATION TRUST INC: $241,172 over 4y, 2.6% of budgetGEORGIA-ALABAMA LAND TRUST INC: $240,316 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetORANGE COUNTY LAND TRUST INC: $216,822 over 2y, 42% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $206,600 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMOHONK PRESERVE INC: $202,000 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetCONSERVATION TRUST FOR NORTH CAROLINA: $192,240 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetMaine Coast Heritage Trust: $163,200 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetTHE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL INC: $130,000 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetD&H CANAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $130,000 over 2y, 8.8% of budgetCERES INC: $125,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetLAKE CHAMPLAIN LAND TRUST INC: $122,223 over 3y, 5.0% of budgetBULL CREEK COMMON LANDS: $120,000 over 1y, 37% of budgetAGRICULTURAL STEWARDSHIP ASSN INC: $117,452 over 3y, 3.2% of budgetWINDMILL HILL PINNACLE ASSOCIATION: $115,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetGREATER LOVELL LAND TRUST INC: $102,329 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetTHE POUGHKEEPSIE-HIGHLAND RAILROAD: $100,000 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetSOMERSET WOODS TRUSTEES: $100,000 over 1y, 4.7% 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.

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 Nature ConservancyLand Trust Alliance I…Davis Conservation Fo…National Fish and Wil…Fields Pond Foundatio…Ibm International Fou…Quimby Family Foundat…The Conservation Fund…Maine Community Found…Onion FoundationThe William Penn Foun…The Peter and Carmen …
The Nature ConservancyVA73.8× affinity48 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Nature Conservancy · Land Trust Alliance Inc · Davis Conservation Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Fields Pond Foundation Inc · Ibm International Foundation · Quimby Family Foundation · The Conservation Fund a Nonprofit Corporation · Maine Community Foundation Inc · Onion Foundation · The William Penn Foundation · The Peter and Carmen Lucia Buck Foundation 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 Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Cold Hollow to Canada Incorporated: 56% of income from government
  • Hunterdon Land Trust: 48% of income from government
  • Windmill Hill Pinnacle Association: 47% of income from government
  • Putney Mountain Association Incorporated: 44% of income from government
  • Vermont Land Trust Inc: 42% of income from government
  • Vermont Woodlands Association: 21% of income from government
  • The Vermont River Conservancy Inc: 21% of income from government
  • Musconetcong Watershed Association: 14% of income from government
  • Friends of the Mad River: 12% of income from government
  • Stowe Land Trust: 10% of income from government
  • New Jersey Future Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Bull Creek Common Lands: 4% of income from government
  • Northeast Wilderness Trust Corporation: 2% of income from government
  • Appalachian Mountain Club: 1% of income from government
  • Lake Champlain Land Trust Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space: 0% of income from government
  • Ridge and Valley Conservancy Inc: 0% of income from government
  • Ceres Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
36report 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 147 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 Open Space Institute Land’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