Skip to content
The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$1.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$715k
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 2025.

Food & Nutrition$6.6MEnvironment$689kCommunity Improvement$135kRecreation & Sports$125kPublic Benefit$107kAnimals$39kEducation$15kArts & Culture$13kOther$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $848,120, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,008,325 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $160,205 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $110k
  • $250k+1 grant · $715k
$14,373
Median grant
1
States reached
$74M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MEADOWOOD SENIOR LIVING: $5k → 7%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.6M · 23 repeat orgs$216k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +49% since the first grant, against +40% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
17

Total granted

$7.6M
$206k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
+40%

Still filing today

74%
47%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureScience & TechHuman ServicesOther
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

  • PW
    PERKIOMEN WATERSHED CONSERVANCY
    7× · 2019–2025 · $147k · revenue +59%
  • FP
    FAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY
    2× · 2022–2023 · $84k · revenue +140%
  • PE
    PENNYPACK ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TRUST
    6× · 2020–2025 · $77k · revenue +119%

Funded once

  • RD
    ROXBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $38k · revenue +119%
  • CO
    CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
    one grant, 2020 · $29k
  • CC
    ChesterCounty Conservation
    one grant, 2019 · $19k
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
The Clearwater Conservancy of Central Pennsylvania Inc

To conserve and restore the natural resources through land conservation, water resources stewardship and environmental outreach across central pennsylvania.

Environment
2
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
3
Glen Foerd Conservation Corporation

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…

Environment
4
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
5
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

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…

Environment
6
Independence Conservancyinc

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…

Environment
7
Green Valleys Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania

To protect, preserve, and restore the natural waterways of northern chester county. we inspire, educate, and involve our community to make a difference for our generation and for generations to come.

Environment
8
New Jersey Conservation Foundation

Recognizing that a healthy environment is critical to the well-being and survival of all living things, new jersey conservation foundation is devoted to preserving land and protecting natural resources throughout new jersey's (continued on…

Environment
9
Lancaster County Conservancy

The mission of the lancaster county conservancy is "providing wild and forested lands and clean waterways for our community forever". the charitable purposes of the lancaster county conservancy include preservation of natural lands,…

Environment
10
Wildlands Conservancy Inc

The mission of wildlands conservancy is to protect and restore critical natural areas and waterways, and educate the community to create a legacy of a healthy, sustainable environment for future generations.

Environment
11
Penns Valley Conservation Association

To serve as a steward for the natural and cultural communities in the upper Penns Creek Watershed. We seek to preserve and Honor the agricultural roots of Penns Valley by protecting and conserving its waters, farmland, forests and rural…

Environment
12
The Forest Park Conservancy

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…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Heritage Conservancy Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

26 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. 26 of the 41 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/26
Grantees still filing
20/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MEADOWBROOK FARM: $6,634,309 · EducationMEADOWBROOK FARM+1 more: $9,288 · EducationPERKIOMEN WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $146,680 · OtherUpper Merion Township: $47,816 · OtherMONTGOMERY COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $39,241 · OtherHAVERFORD TOWNSHIP: $35,106 · OtherUPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP: $30,694 · OtherCITY OF PHILADELPHIA: $29,000 · OtherHAVERFORD TOWNSHIP: $25,897 · OtherUPPER BUCKS ROAD WORK: $23,201 · OtherChesterCounty Conservation: $18,578 · Other+11 more: $95,896 · OtherFAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY: $84,499 · EnvironmentPENNYPACK ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TRUST: $77,060 · EnvironmentFRENCH AND PICKERING CREEKS CONSERVATION TRUST INC: $50,900 · EnvironmentRIVERBEND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER: $48,609 · EnvironmentThe Schuylkill Center For Environmental Education: $40,337 · EnvironmentNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $39,415 · EnvironmentNatural Lands Trust Inc: $25,575 · EnvironmentTOOKANY TACONY FRANKFORD WATERSHED PARTN ERSHIP: $25,055 · EnvironmentBRANDYWINE RED CLAY ALLIANCE: $17,033 · Environment+4 more: $44,731 · EnvironmentROXBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $37,500 · Community ImprovementDELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION: $36,433 · Community ImprovementHERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC: $50,201 · Arts & CultureBrandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art: $12,521 · Arts & CultureSTROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER: $43,299 · Science & TechMEADOWOOD CORPORATION: $5,472 · Human Services
Education$6,643,597Other$492,109Environment$453,214Community Improvement$73,933Arts & Culture$62,722Science & Tech$43,299Human Services$5,472

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMEADOWBROOK FARM: $6,634,309 over 9y, 100% of budgetPERKIOMEN WATERSHED CONSERVANCY: $146,680 over 7y, 11% of budgetFAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY: $84,499 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetPENNYPACK ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TRUST: $77,060 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetFRENCH AND PICKERING CREEKS CONSERVATION TRUST INC: $50,900 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetHERITAGE CONSERVANCY INC: $50,201 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetRIVERBEND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER: $48,609 over 6y, 1.4% of budgetSTROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER: $43,299 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetThe Schuylkill Center For Environmental Education: $40,337 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $39,415 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetROXBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $37,500 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetDELAWARE RIVER CITY CORPORATION: $36,433 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetNatural Lands Trust Inc: $25,575 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTOOKANY TACONY FRANKFORD WATERSHED PARTN ERSHIP: $25,055 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetBRANDYWINE RED CLAY ALLIANCE: $17,033 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetBrandywine Conservancy & Museum of Art: $12,521 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetEXCEL EVENTS: $12,461 over 2y, 84% of budgetDARBY CREEK VALLEY ASSOCIATION: $11,597 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetOPEN LAND CONSERVANCY OF CHESTER COUNTY: $11,323 over 1y, 8.4% of budgetPHILADELPHIA CRICKET CLUB: $11,191 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCHESTER RIDLEY CRUM WATERSHEDS ASSOCIATION: $9,950 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetTHE FRIENDS OF THE WISSAHICKON INC: $9,350 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBUCKS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $9,288 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetDELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK: $7,905 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE JOHN BARTRAM ASSOCIATION: $6,315 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMEADOWOOD CORPORATION: $5,472 over 1y, 0.0% 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 William Penn Foun…National Fish and Wil…The Cigna Group Found…The Philadelphia Foun…National Arbor Day Fo…National Wildlife Fed…Chester County Commun…Chubb Charitable Foun…Quaker City FoundationHamilton Family Found…Lindback Cr & Mf Foun…National Audubon Soci…
The William Penn FoundationPA30.4× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    8report 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 41 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Pennsylvania Horticultural Society’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