· Public charity
The Trust for Public Land Action Fund
Nonprofit support of park and conservation funding.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 3 grants below total $119,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $130,483 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $10,983 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 · FY2023
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $102k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NY FUND FOR CONSERVATION INC | $102,000 |
| PROTECT NASSAU NOW OR NEVER | $10,000 |
| FRIENDS OF WINDSOR OPEN SPACE | $7,500 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 68% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
The Planning and Conservaton League is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that serves as the lobbying arm of environmental community -- passing, enforcing, and protecting laws and initiatives that safeguard our environment and communities.
Ballot measure for Santa Cruz County in California aimed at safeguarding water quality, preserving clean ocean and beach areas, reducing wildfire risks, protecting forests, enhancing wildlife habitats, and improving community spaces.
The Santa Clara River Conservancy represents the diverse interests of the Santa Clara River, from the flood plain to the highest tributaries, and seeks to secure, sustain, and manage significant lands and waters that provide habitat for…
The Conservation Coalition of Oklahoma CCO is a nonpartisan 501c4 organization representing common-sense conservation policy in Oklahoma. Partnering with its 501c3 members, CCO advocates for science-based legislation protecting water,…
To reclaim, restore, and revitalize the creeks and rivers in the Santa Clara Valley watershed.
Local ballot issue political action committee located in the state of Ohio
To advance conservation governance through political will and to provide "on the ground" solutions to ensure sustained economic benefits while managing the earth's natural resource wealth for future generations.
Advocate for endangered wildlife and habitat protection on National Forest public lands in northern California.
CSERC protects water, wildlife, and wild places of the Northern Yosemite region.
Promote stewardship of natural resources and funding for conservation efforts in california.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Committee for Clean Water Natural Resources and Parks and the most unlike its peers is Rotary Club of Seattle Northeast Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 23 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 COMMITTEE FOR CLEAN WATER NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS ↗
- Who funds Protect Connect and Restore the San Geronimo Valley 2020 ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK FUND FOR CONSERVATION INC CO The Nature Conservancy New York ↗
- Who funds WWRC ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds ROTARY CLUB OF SEATTLE NORTHEAST FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Coalition Inc ↗
- Who funds Fresno for Clean Safe Neighborhood Parks A Coalition of Parents ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Connecticut Land Conservation Council Inc ↗
- Who funds VOTE YES FOR CLEAN AIR CLEAN WATER ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds PROTECT CT PUBLIC LANDS COALITION ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: The Nature Conservancy
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 Trust for Public Land Action Fund 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.
- Connecticut Land Conservation Council Inc — 12% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Trust for Public Land Action Fund?
Find your warmest path to The Trust for Public Land Action Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.