How much does Trees Water & People give?

Trees Water & People reported 2 itemized grants totaling $108,634, out of $715,679 in total grant expense reported on the return in its FY2026 IRS filing. It funded between 1 and 5 organizations a year over FY2018 to FY2025.

What does Trees Water & People fund?

By grant dollars over FY2018 to FY2026, its largest causes are Environment (59%), Education (17%), Employment (13%).

Who are Trees Water & People's largest grantees?

By total granted over FY2018 to FY2026: Conservation Legacy ($145k), Red Cloud Renewable ($142k), Montezuma Land Conservancy ($91k).

Does Trees Water & People fund new organizations?

In FY2025, 20% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.

Which funders back the same organizations as Trees Water & People?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include First Nations Development Institute, Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc, National Philanthropic Trust.

Where is Trees Water & People based?

Trees Water & People is based in CO.

Trees Water & People

Trees Water & People at a glance Mostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Trees Water & People

Trees, water and people is dedicated to provide a community-based approach to sustainable development through reforestation, watershed protection, cleantech and clean cookstoves, and educational programs in latin america and indigenous lands in the united states.

$716k

Granted FY2026still arriving

Grants FY2026still arriving

States reached

$78k

Largest

01What it funds

01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Environment$322kEducation$94kEmployment$69kPublic Benefit$39kPublic Safety & Disaster$10kPhilanthropy$9k

02FY2026 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured

The 2 grants below total $108,634, the rows itemized in this filing. The $715,679 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $607,045 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 · FY2026

$10k–50k1 grant · $31k
$50k–250k1 grant · $78k

$77,500

Median grant

States reached

$2.3M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
CONSERVATION LEGACY	$77,500
JEMEZ PUEBLO DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL RESOURCES	$31,134

02The need

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 (FY18–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 25%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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.

Grants abroad, by region: $607k on the FY2026 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Central America and the Caribbean$557k · 92% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SERVICES

North America (Canada and Mexico)$50k · 8% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SERVICES

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.

03Its grantees

repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$574k · 7 repeat orgs$69k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2026, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$574k

$69k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+55%

+80%

Still filing today

57%

33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EnvironmentEducationYouth DevelopmentOther

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

CONSERVATION LEGACY
4× · 2022–2026 · $145k · revenue +55%
RC
RED CLOUD RENEWABLE
5× · 2020–2025 · $142k · revenue ×12
ML
MONTEZUMA LAND CONSERVANCY
2× · 2023–2024 · $91k · revenue +29%

Funded once

PR
PINE RIDGE GIRLS SCHOOL INC
one grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue -4%
PO
Pueblo of Jemez Nat'l Res
one grant, 2024 · $13k
CW
Can Wigmunke-Rainbow Tree
one grant, 2020 · $10k

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

04the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 14 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

7/7

Grantees still filing

6/7

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Environment$236,221Other$188,783Youth Development$145,030Education$73,200Philanthropy$9,381

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

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.

First Nations Development InstituteCO13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: First Nations Development Institute · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Trees Water & People funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Trees Water & People. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get 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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Trees Water & People?

Find your warmest path to Trees Water & People 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.

Play a game based on Trees Water & People’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