Skip to content
Rock Creek Conservancy Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Rock Creek Conservancy Inc

Restore Rock Creek and its parklands as a natural oasis for all people to appreciate and protect.

$126k
Granted FY2021
11
Grants FY2021
2
States reached
$23k
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 2021.

Environment$143kYouth Development$33kPublic Benefit$27kArts & Culture$10kCommunity Improvement$10kFood & Nutrition$10kRecreation & Sports$10kEducation$7k
02FY2021 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2021

  • Under $10k3 grants · $25k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $101k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
One Montgomery Green$22,500
New Partners Community Solar$15,000
Lanham Boys and Girls Club$12,500
Audubon Naturalist Society$11,000
DC Greens$10,000
City Blossoms$10,000
Town of Landover Hills$10,000
Ward 8 Woods Conservancy$10,000
City of Hyattsvile$9,975
Laurel for the Patuxent$7,850
Montgomery County Dept of EP$7,175
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 (FY20–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Wangari Gardens: $7k → 14%Montgomery County Dept of EP: $7k → 8%Town of Landover Hills: $10k → 11%C & O Canal Trust: $10k → 12%One Common Unity: $10k → 14%Bethesda Green Inc: $10k → 8%Laurel for the Patuxent: $8k → 11%Casey Trees: $10k → 14%One Montgomery Green: $23k → 8%City of Hyattsvile: $10k → 11%New Partners Community Solar: $25k → 14%One Montgomery Green: $22k → 8%Accokeek Foundation: $10k → 11%New Partners Community Solar: $15k → 14%Audubon Naturalist Society: $11k → 8%DC Greens: $10k → 14%Ward 8 Woods Conservancy: $10k → 14%Ward 8 Woods Conservancy: $10k → 14%City Blossoms: $10k → 14%City Blossoms: $10k → 14%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.

50%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$124k · 4 repeat orgs$125k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +214% since the first grant, against +34% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2021, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
6

Total granted

$124k
$57k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+214%
+34%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $69k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentArts & CultureOther
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

  • OM
    ONE MONTGOMERY GREEN INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $44k · revenue +25%
  • CB
    CITY BLOSSOMS INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $20k · revenue +214%
  • W8
    Ward 8 Woods Conservancy Inc
    2× · 2020–2021 · $20k · revenue +312%

Funded once

  • BG
    BETHESDA GREEN INC
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue -1%
  • CC
    C&O CANAL TRUST INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +108%
  • CT
    Casey Treesgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +34%
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
Northern Virginia Conservation Trust

The Northern Virginia Conservation Trust saves nearby nature by encouraging and assisting governments and private landowners to preserve and care for natural areas, trails, streams, parks, and historic and cultural resources for the…

Environment
2
Rock Creek Conservancy Inc

Restore Rock Creek and its parklands as a natural oasis for all people to appreciate and protect.

Environment
3
Greenspace Ncr

Greenspace works to make affordable housing and its neighborhoods green. greenspace's major program is with washington dc's department general services sustainability and energy division where we developed a strategic plan and program…

—
4
Montgomery County Lands Trust Inc

Land Conservation and Preservation.

Environment
5
Friends of Anacostia Park

People for the Park. A Park for the People. FoAP uses Restorative Park Engagement practices to host intergenerational programs that promote mental, physical, and social well-being, creating space for community building and healing. We also…

Philanthropy
6
Little Falls Watershed Alliance Inc

LFWAs mission is to restore and protect the Little Falls watershed, a vulnerable natural ecosystem nestled in Montgomery County, Maryland and Washington, D.C. It strives to restore and sustain the water quality, natural habitat, health and…

Environment
7
Middle Patuxent Environmental Foundation
Philanthropy
8
Friends of Cabin John Creek Inc

Friends of Cabin John Creek is a volunteer citizen group dedicated to the preservation, restoration, and stewardship of the Cabin John Creek watershed in Montgomery County, MD. Cabin John Creek flows through the communities of Rockville,…

Environment
9
Green Cities Accord

Green Cities Accord is a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering climate resilient communities through investments in tree canopy infrastructure to improve environmental health, climate resilience, and equity in communities. We focus…

Environment
10
Usa Green Communities
—
11
Arlington Garden in Pasadena

Arlington Garden is a climate-appropriate, habitat garden offering learning, inspiration, and enjoyment for all.

Environment
12
Washington Parks & People

To protect, restore and promote sound park management in the Washington DC metropolitan area. (See Continuation on Schedule O)

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nature Forward; the most unlike its peers is Lanham Boys Club Incorporated. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

13 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. 13 of the 16 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ONE MONTGOMERY GREEN INC: $44,000 · EnvironmentONE MONTGOMERY GREEN INCWard 8 Woods Conservancy Inc: $20,000 · EnvironmentWard 8 Woods Conservancy IncNature Forward: $11,000 · EnvironmentNature ForwardBETHESDA GREEN INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentBETHESDA GREEN INCC&O CANAL TRUST INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentC&O CANAL TRUST INCCasey Trees: $10,000 · EnvironmentCasey TreesLAUREL FOR THE PATUXENT: $7,850 · EnvironmentLAUREL FOR THE PATUXENTNEW PARTNERS COMMUNITY SOLAR CORP: $40,000 · Community ImprovementNEW PARTNERS COMMUNITY…DC Greens Inc: $10,000 · Community ImprovementDC Greens IncMONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND: $17,175 · OtherMONTGOMERY COUNTY M…CITY OF HYATTSVILLE: $9,975 · OtherCITY OF HYATTSVILLEACCOKEEK FOUNDATION INC: $9,725 · OtherACCOKEEK FOUNDATION…FRIENDS OF WANGARI GARDENS: $7,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF WANGARI …CITY BLOSSOMS INC: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentCITY BLOSSOMS …LANHAM BOYS CLUB INCORPORATED: $12,500 · Youth DevelopmentLANHAM BOYS CL…ONE COMMON UNITY: $10,000 · Arts & Culture
Environment$112,850Community Improvement$50,000Other$43,875Youth Development$32,500Arts & Culture$10,000

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 budgetONE MONTGOMERY GREEN INC: $44,000 over 2y, 20% of budgetNEW PARTNERS COMMUNITY SOLAR CORP: $40,000 over 2y, 7.5% of budgetCITY BLOSSOMS INC: $20,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetWard 8 Woods Conservancy Inc: $20,000 over 2y, 6.6% of budgetNature Forward: $11,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDC Greens Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBETHESDA GREEN INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetC&O CANAL TRUST INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCasey Trees: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetONE COMMON UNITY: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetACCOKEEK FOUNDATION INC: $9,725 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.

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.

Greater Washington Co…Chesapeake Bay TrustThe Morris and Gwendo…Nora Roberts Foundati…Crimsonbridge Foundat…Frederick Henry Princ…PatagoniaorgAmerican Endowment Fo…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…
Greater Washington Community FoundationDC24.3× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Washington Community Foundation · Chesapeake Bay Trust · The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation · Nora Roberts Foundation · Crimsonbridge Foundation Inc · Frederick Henry Prince Testamentary Trust · Patagoniaorg · American Endowment Foundation · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving 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 Rock Creek Conservancy Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rock Creek Conservancy Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 44%
  • Accokeek Foundation Inc: 44% of income from government
  • Nature Forward: 32% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
3report 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, FY20–25
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 16 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $212 of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2021, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Rock Creek Conservancy’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