Skip to content
Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation

Oregon wildlife foundation empowers the lasting conservation of our fish and wildlife and citizen enjoyment of our natural resources.

$124k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$18k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Animals$139kEnvironment$91kEducation$20k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $60,739, the rows itemized in this filing. The $124,144 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $63,405 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 $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $56k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE$18,295
UPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL$17,272
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRANDE RONDE$10,000
KLAMATH BIRD OBSERVATORY$10,000
OREGON STYATE UNIVERSITY$5,172
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CROOK COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $9k → 11%CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRANDE RONDE: $10k → 11%UPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $17k → 11%WATERWATCH OF OREGON: $10k → 12%KLAMATH BIRD OBSERVATORY: $10k → 13%OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $32k → 14%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $20k → 18%CROOKED RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL: $7k → 11%CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRANDE RONDE: $10k → 11%UPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $17k → 11%KLAMATH BIRD OBSERVATORY: $10k → 13%OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $19k → 14%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $10k → 18%OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $18k → 14%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $5k → 18%OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $10k → 14%OREGON STYATE UNIVERSITY: $5k → 18%OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $15k → 14%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $5k → 18%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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$194k · 5 repeat orgs$55k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +59% since the first grant, against +33% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
5

Total granted

$194k
$55k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+59%
+33%

Still filing today

40%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentEducationAnimalsOther
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

  • OD
    OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
    5× · 2020–2024 · $94k
  • UN
    UPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL
    2× · 2022–2024 · $35k · revenue +59%
  • OS
    OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
    4× · 2021–2024 · $25k

Funded once

  • Oregon State University Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue +33%
  • COLUMBIA LAND TRUST
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue -38%
  • WO
    WaterWatch of Oregongraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue +177%
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

6 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. 6 of the 10 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
4/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE: $94,415 · OtherOREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFEOREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $25,403 · OtherOREGON STATE UNIVERSITYConfederated Tribes of Grand Ronde: $20,000 · OtherConfederated Tribes of Grand RondeWaterWatch of Oregon: $10,000 · OtherWaterWatch of OregonCROOK COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $8,850 · OtherCROOK COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTUPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $34,544 · EnvironmentUPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED…COLUMBIA LAND TRUST: $10,000 · EnvironmentCOLUMBIA LAND TRUSTCrooked River Watershed Council: $6,500 · EnvironmentCrooked River Watershed…KLAMATH BIRD OBSERVATORY: $20,000 · AnimalsKLAMATH B…Oregon State University Foundation: $20,000 · EducationOregon St…
Other$158,668Environment$51,044Animals$20,000Education$20,000

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 budgetUPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL: $34,544 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetKLAMATH BIRD OBSERVATORY: $20,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetOregon State University Foundation: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOLUMBIA LAND TRUST: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWaterWatch of Oregon: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCrooked River Watershed Council: $6,500 over 1y, 0.8% 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 UPPER NEHALEM WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds KLAMATH BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
  • Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
  • Who funds COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds WaterWatch of Oregon ↗
  • Who funds Crooked River Watershed Council ↗

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 Oregon Community …The Nature ConservancyNational Fish and Wil…
The Oregon Community FoundationOR16.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Oregon Community Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

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 Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 61%
  • Klamath Bird Observatory: 100% of income from government
  • Crooked River Watershed Council: 100% of income from government
  • WaterWatch of Oregon: 61% of income from government
  • Upper Nehalem Watershed Council: 52% of income from government
  • Oregon State University Foundation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4rely 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 10 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 Oregon Wildlife Heritage’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