Skip to content

· Private foundation

Vanderpoel Conservation Foundation Xxxxx6009

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$41k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$359kArts & Culture$72kEducation$12kAnimals$7kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$4,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$939k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS$6,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC$5,000
NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE$5,000
CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES$5,000
FRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES$4,000
ISLAND CONSERVATION$3,000
PRESERVATION FOUNDATION OF THE$2,000
AUSTIN PEAY STATE UNIVERSITY$2,000
THE NATIONAL MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSEUM$2,000
SEA TURTLE CONSERVANCY$1,000
CORNELL UNIVERSITY$1,000
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 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 87% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ISLAND CONSERVATION: $3k → 13%THE NATIONAL MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSEUM: $2k → 11%COLORADO AGRICULTURAL LEADERSHIP: $10k → 3%FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $7k → 12%CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $6k → 14%NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $42k → 15%COLORADO AGRICULTURAL LEADERSHIP: $5k → 3%FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $6k → 12%CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $6k → 14%NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $6k → 15%COLORADO AGRICULTURAL: $3k → 3%FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $6k → 12%CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $6k → 14%NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $5k → 15%FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $6k → 12%CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $5k → 14%NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $5k → 15%FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $5k → 12%CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $5k → 14%NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $5k → 15%FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $5k → 12%CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $5k → 14%Natural Land Institute: $5k → 15%FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $5k → 12%CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $5k → 14%NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $5k → 15%Friends of Nachusa Grasslands: $4k → 12%PEGGY NOTEBAERT NATURE MUSEUM: $4k → 14%Natural Land Institute: $3k → 15%Friends of Nachusa Grasslands: $3k → 12%FRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES: $6k → 14%FRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES: $5k → 14%FRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES: $4k → 14%FRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES: $4k → 14%FRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES: $4k → 14%FRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES: $3k → 14%CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $32k → 14%CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $25k → 14%Citizens for Conservation Inc: $25k → 14%Citizens for Conservation Inc: $22k → 14%CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $21k → 14%CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $19k → 14%CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $18k → 14%CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $15k → 14%CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $5k → 14%CALF PLUM CREEK RESTORATION: $3k → 14%CALF PLUM CREEK RESTORATION: $3k → 14%CALF PLUM CREEK RESTORATION: $3k → 14%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$467k · 16 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
5

Total granted

$467k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+63%

Still filing today

56%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EnvironmentArts & CultureAnimalsEducationOther
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

  • CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $181k · revenue +51%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $46k · revenue +277%
  • TC
    THE CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
    9× · 2017–2025 · $43k · revenue +5%

Funded once

  • FO
    FRIENDS OF QUINTA MAZATLAN INC
    one grant, 2021 · $3k · revenue -28%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE FOREST PRESERVES
    one grant, 2019 · $2k · revenue +12%
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
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
2
Conservation Farms & Ranches

Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.

Housing & Shelter
3
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
4
Natural Resources Foundation of

To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.

—
5
Nature Collective

Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…

Environment
6
Idaho Conservation League Inc

Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.

—
7
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
8
Heartlands Conservancy

The mission of heartlands conservancy is to empower and colaborate with the people of southern illinois to advance and protect the health of our distinctive communities and nationally significant natural and cultural resources.

Environment
9
Huron Pines Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc

It is our mission at huron pines to conserve and enhance northern michigan's natural resources to ensure healthy water, protected places and vibrant communities. for alomst 50 years, our work across the forests, lakes and streams of…

Environment
10
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
11
Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

This member-supported organization protects and restores iowa's land, water and wildlife for future generations. priorities include permanent land protection, promotion of improved land management and bringing new conservation…

Environment
12
Green Lake Conservancy Inc

The green lake conservancy permanently and proactively protects and preserves special places, primarily in the green lake watershed and county by oppering conservation expertise, strattegies, and legal tools for the benefits of humans,…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of Illinois Nature Preserves; the most unlike its peers is Natural Land Institute. 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

13 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. 13 of the 21 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
10/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $181,143 · EnvironmentCITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INCNATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $77,800 · EnvironmentNATURAL LAND INSTITUTEFRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $46,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDSFRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES: $26,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES+5 more: $20,000 · Environment+5 morePRESERVATION FOUNDATION OF THE: $17,000 · OtherPRESERVATION FOU…Individual grant recipient: $14,700 · OtherIndividual grant…AUSTIN PEAY STATE UNIVERSITY: $10,000 · OtherAUSTIN PEAY STAT…Individual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant…CALF PLUM CREEK RESTORATION: $8,000 · OtherCALF PLUM CREEK …SEA TURTLE CONSERVANCY: $4,000 · OtherSEA TURTLE CONSE…Individual grant recipient: $2,500 · Other+1 more: $2,000 · OtherTHE CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $43,000 · Arts & CultureTHE CHICAGO …Dubuque County Historical Society: $11,500 · Arts & CultureDubuque Coun…Cornell University: $2,000 · EducationTHE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER: $1,000 · Animals
Environment$350,943Other$68,200Arts & Culture$54,500Education$2,000Animals$1,000

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 budgetCITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC: $181,143 over 9y, 3.8% of budgetNATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $77,800 over 9y, 1.4% of budgetFRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $46,000 over 9y, 1.4% of budgetTHE CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $43,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES: $26,000 over 6y, 3.2% of budgetDubuque County Historical Society: $11,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetISLAND CONSERVATION: $11,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF QUINTA MAZATLAN INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCornell University: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE FOREST PRESERVES: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER: $1,000 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.

  • Who funds CITIZENS FOR CONSERVATION INC ↗
  • Who funds NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS ↗
  • Who funds THE CHICAGO ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF ILLINOIS NATURE PRESERVES ↗
  • Who funds Dubuque County Historical Society ↗
  • Who funds ISLAND CONSERVATION ↗
  • Who funds TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF QUINTA MAZATLAN INC ↗
  • Who funds Cornell University ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE FOREST PRESERVES ↗
  • Who funds SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds THE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER ↗

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.

Bobolink FoundationIL15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Bobolink Foundation · Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation · Hamill Family Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Vanderpoel Conservation Foundation Xxxxx6009 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Vanderpoel Conservation Foundation Xxxxx6009. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 21 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-PF 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 Vanderpoel Conservation Foundation Xxxxx6009’s filings →

    More from the funding graph