· Public charity
The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society
Founded in 1827, THE PENNSYLVANIA HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY (phs) uses horticulture to advance the health and well-being of the greater philadelphia region.
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 10 grants below total $848,120 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,008,325 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $160,205 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 $10k3 grants · $23k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $110k
- $250k+1 grant · $715k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MEADOWBROOK FARM | $714,650 |
| HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP | $25,704 |
| AUDUBON MID-ATLANTIC | $24,383 |
| PERKIOMEN WATERSHED CONSERVANCY | $21,685 |
| PENNYPACK ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TRUST | $14,373 |
| HERITAGE CONSERVANCY | $13,179 |
| RIVERBEND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER | $11,067 |
| CHESTER RIDLEY CRUM WATERSHEDS ASSOCIATION | $9,950 |
| NATURAL LANDS | $7,619 |
| TOOKANYTACONY-FRANKFORD WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP INC | $5,510 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY21–21, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +49% since the first grant, against +30% for the ones you funded once.
23 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 1 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, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
- PWPERKIOMEN WATERSHED CONSERVANCY7× · 2019–2025 · $147k · revenue +59%
- FPFAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY2× · 2022–2023 · $84k · revenue +367%
- PEPENNYPACK ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TRUST6× · 2020–2025 · $77k · revenue +119%
Funded once
- RDROXBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $38k · revenue +119%
- COCITY OF PHILADELPHIAone grant, 2020 · $29k
- CCChesterCounty Conservationone grant, 2019 · $19k
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.
Glen foerd stewards an eclectic riverfront estate for the enjoyment and educational benefit of the community. drawing from the estate's architecture, art, material culture, and history-as well as its gardens and waterways-glen foerd…
To conserve and restore the natural resources through land conservation, water resources stewardship and environmental outreach across central pennsylvania.
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…
To protect and restore the ecological health of forest park and marquam nature park, maintain and enhance their extensive trails networks, promote equitable access, and inspire diverse community appreciation and stewardship of these iconic…
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…
The Allegheny County Conservation District is an urban conservation district that engages and leads through partnerships, innovation, and implementation to conserve, promote, and improve Allegheny Countys natural resources.
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…
Preserving open space by acquisition, easement or deed restriction to protect wildlife habitat, natural and cultural resources, scenic views and quality of life; providing stewardship of watersheds in southwestern pennsylvania through…
Our vision is to be a cornerstone of excellence in the stewardship of the environment. clearly identified with our specific mission, we strive to meet the ever-changing needs of the county and to conserve its heritage and essential…
We improve quality of life by enhancing and stewarding pittsburgh's parks in partnership with the community.
The Land Conservancy of Ridgefield, Inc. ("the Land Conservancy"), founded in 1967, preserves and protects, for the general benefit of the public, Ridgefield, Connecticut's natural resources including land and water resources, the plant…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education and the most unlike its peers is Excel Events. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 52 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
26 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. 26 of the 41 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 MEADOWBROOK FARM ↗
- Who funds PERKIOMEN WATERSHED CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds FAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds PENNYPACK ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds FRENCH AND PICKERING CREEKS CONSERVATION TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds HERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds RIVERBEND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER ↗
- Who funds STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds The Schuylkill Center For Environmental Education ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds ROXBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds DELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Natural Lands Trust Inc ↗
- Who funds TOOKANY TACONY FRANKFORD WATERSHED PARTN ERSHIP ↗
- Who funds BRANDYWINE RED CLAY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Brandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art ↗
- Who funds EXCEL EVENTS ↗
- Who funds DARBY CREEK VALLEY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds OPEN LAND CONSERVANCY OF CHESTER COUNTY ↗
- Who funds PHILADELPHIA CRICKET CLUB ↗
- Who funds CHESTER RIDLEY CRUM WATERSHEDS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE FRIENDS OF THE WISSAHICKON INC ↗
- Who funds BUCKS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK ↗
- Who funds THE JOHN BARTRAM ASSOCIATION ↗
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 · The Cigna Group Foundation · The Philadelphia Foundation · National Arbor Day Foundation · National Wildlife Federation · Chester County Community Foundation · Chubb Charitable Foundation · Quaker City Foundation · Hamilton Family Foundation · Lindback Cr & Mf Foundation Tw Main · National Audubon Society 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 The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 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.
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.