Skip to content
The Sand County Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Sand County Foundation Inc

Sand county foundation's mission is to inspire and empower a growing number of land owners and managers to ethically care for the land to sustain water resources, build healthy soil, enhance wildlife habitat, and support outdoor recreation.

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
19
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$334k
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$7.6MAnimals$185kEducation$99kFood & Nutrition$82kCommunity Improvement$10k
02FY2025 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 19 grants below total $788,156, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,126,059 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $337,903 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 $10k5 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $162k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $254k
  • $250k+1 grant · $334k
$10,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST$333,630
DUBUQUE SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT$101,340
SAUK COUNTY LRE$85,924
GREEN COUNTY LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION$66,932
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION CENTER$44,244
LEVEL-VU ACRES LLC$22,115
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY$17,023
GBJF ENTERPRISES LLC$14,924
POLLACK-VU DAIRY LLC$14,110
WILTSE FAMILY FARMS LLC$10,000
TWIN MAPLES FARM$10,000
KERWIN HILL FARM LLC$10,000
TLL TEMPLE FOUNDATION$10,000
VIRAMONTES FARMS LLC$10,000
SEVEN RIVERS SOIL COOPERATIVE INC$8,881
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WHEEL-VIEW FARM: $10k → 14%CDM SMITH INC: $50k → 16%K & W FARMS: $10k → 13%REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $63k → 11%HIDDEN HOLLOW HIDEAWAY CATTLE AND GUEST RANCH: $10k → 9%BARNEY CREEK LIVESTOCK LLC: $10k → 10%SLATE RIDGE DAIRY FARM INC: $10k → 9%R&S FLINCHBAUGH LLC: $10k → 9%BRUBAKER FARMS LLC: $10k → 9%HARVEST HOME FARMS: $10k → 11%MT-GLEN FARM: $10k → 12%KETOS INC: $10k → 8%BERETTA DAIRY: $10k → 9%POLICYLINK: $110k → 10%PARK FARMING ORGANICS: $10k → 14%KERN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10k → 18%WEHAH FARM INC: $10k → 18%BOWLES FARMING COMPANY INC: $10k → 19%SANG LEE FARMS INC: $10k → 7%TABLE ROCK FARM INC: $10k → 12%SUNNYSIDE FARMS INC: $10k → 13%GREENFIELD FARMS: $10k → 14%DYGERT FARMS: $10k → 14%NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY: $17k → 17%THE DIXON WATER FOUNDATION: $10k → 8%MM TERRY RANCH LTD: $10k → 14%RANCHO SAN PEDRO JOINT VENTURE: $10k → 16%TLL TEMPLE FOUNDATION: $10k → 16%CAESAR KLEBERG WILDLIFE RESEARCH: $10k → 27%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: $10k → 28%UTE CREEK CATTLE COMPANY INC: $10k → 19%DOUBLE C CATTLE CO LLC: $10k → 16%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $334k → 14%DUBUQUE SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $101k → 11%GREEN COUNTY LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION: $67k → 7%POLLACK-VU DAIRY LLC: $14k → 9%SAUK COUNTY LRE: $86k → 9%STEMPER HAY & GRAIN: $11k → 9%BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM: $40k → 10%MOONSHOT MISSIONS INC: $13k → 8%ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION CENTER: $5.6M → 11%NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY: $15k → 17%LEVEL-VU ACRES LLC: $22k → 9%BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM: $32k → 10%ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION CENTER: $903k → 11%GBJF ENTERPRISES LLC: $15k → 9%ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES: $230k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION CENTER: $44k → 11%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

MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
NY
MA
WY
SD
IN
PA
NJ
CT
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
MD
NM
KS
NC
OK
TX
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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6.7M · 5 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +477% since the first grant, against +37% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 16 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
69

Total granted

$6.7M
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+477%
+37%

Still filing today

40%
16%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 9% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $720k 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
EnvironmentFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • EP
    Environmental Policy Innovation Center
    3× · 2023–2025 · $6.6M · revenue +477% · 66% of their budget
  • UO
    University of Wisconsin Madison
    2× · 2022–2023 · $72k
  • NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $32k · revenue +32%

Funded once

  • ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKESgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $230k · revenue +52%
  • RIVER NETWORKgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $150k · revenue +37%
  • P
    POLICYLINK
    one grant, 2022 · $110k · revenue +5%
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
Natural Resources Defense Council Inc

We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…

Environment
2
Environment Now
—
3
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
4
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.": - count it: our work is…

International
5
Conservation Law Foundation Inc

Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…

Environment
6
Ag Innovations Network

Ag Innovations facilitates collaboration among diverse groups to develop holistic solutions to California's most complex agricultural, natural resource and environmental challenges.

Food & Nutrition
7
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
8
Los Angeles Waterkeeper

Los angeles waterkeeper's mission is to fight for the health of the region's waterways, and for sustainable, equitable and climate-friendly water supplies.

Environment
9
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
10
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
11
Texas Water Trade

Creating markets for innovative water resiliency projects.

Environment
12
Third Way

To research and develop centrist policy ideas.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alliance for the Great Lakes; the most unlike its peers is Tll Temple Foundation. 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

18 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. 18 of the 92 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
13/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Environmental Policy Innovation Center: $6,555,963 · EnvironmentEnvironmental Policy Innovation Center+8 more: $239,393 · EnvironmentALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES: $230,000 · OtherALLIANCE FOR THE G…DUBUQUE SWCD: $101,340 · OtherDUBUQUE SWCDADRC OF SAUK COUNTY: $85,924 · OtherADRC OF SAUK COUNT…University of Wisconsin Madison: $72,058 · OtherADRC OF GREEN COUNTY: $66,932 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $63,258 · OtherCDM SMITH INC: $50,000 · Other+71 more: $790,099 · Other+71 moreAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $333,630 · Food & NutritionPOLICYLINK: $110,000 · Community ImprovementDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $10,000 · PhilanthropyKERN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyLittle Village Environmental Justice Org: $10,000 · Recreation & Sports
Environment$6,795,356Other$1,459,611Food & Nutrition$333,630Community Improvement$110,000Philanthropy$20,000Recreation & Sports$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$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEnvironmental Policy Innovation Center: $6,555,963 over 3y, 66% of budgetALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES: $230,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetRIVER NETWORK: $150,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetPOLICYLINK: $110,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $31,769 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMoonshot Missions Inc: $13,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetDONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBlueGreen Alliance Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTLL TEMPLE FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLittle Village Environmental Justice Org: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNEW JERSEY FUTURE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetJohn Bunker Sands Wetland Center Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTHE DIXON WATER FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetKERN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetDRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $8,561 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGLACIERLAND RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCILE INC: $6,063 over 1y, 0.3% 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 Environmental Policy Innovation Center ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES ↗
  • Who funds RIVER NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds POLICYLINK ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds Moonshot Missions Inc ↗
  • Who funds DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY ↗

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.

National Fish and Wil…The Kresge FoundationThe Robert Wood Johns…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC11.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Kresge Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 The Sand County Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Sand County Foundation 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 13%
  • Moonshot Missions Inc: 16% of income from government
  • Environmental Policy Innovation Center: 13% of income from government
  • New Jersey Future Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report 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 92 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 Sand County’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