Skip to content
WD Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

WD Foundation

Its FY2020 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$16k
Granted FY2020
2
Grants FY2020
2
States reached
$14k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

87% of WD Foundation’s FY2020 grant dollars went to Nature Conservancy, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2020 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

11
’17
7
’18
3
’19
1
’20

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2020.

Environment$234kEducation$18kHuman Services$5kRecreation & Sports$500Philanthropy$500Religion$200Food & Nutrition$100Animals$100Other$0
02FY2020 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k1 grant · $2k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $14k
$14,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$14,000
JODAVIESS CONSERVATION FOUNDATION$2,157
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 (FY18–18, $250) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BUILDING ONE COMMUNITY: $250 → 9%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

VT
MT
ND
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
CT
CA
VA
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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$117k · 7 repeat orgs$18k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2020, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
14

Total granted

$117k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
+242%

Still filing today

71%
64%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
EnvironmentEducationReligionFood & NutritionHuman 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

  • EL
    ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST
    3× · 2017–2019 · $50k · revenue +72%
  • JD
    JO DAVIESS CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2017–2020 · $10k · revenue +62%
  • THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2k · revenue +109%

Funded once

  • FV
    FLATHEAD VALLEY COLLEGE
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
  • TG
    THE GROUNDWORK CENTER
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
  • PA
    President and Fellows of Middlebury Collegegraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +47%
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
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
2
The Land Trust for Tennessee Inc

To conserve the unique character of tennessee's natural and historic landscapes and sites for future generations.

Environment
3
Minnesota Land Trust

The minnesota land trust protects and restores minnesota's most vital natural lands in order to provide wildlife habitat, clean water, outdoor experiences and scenic beauty for generations to come.

Environment
4
Tenngreen Land Conservancy

The organization's primary mission is conserving land where people and nature can thrive by creating green corridors linking existing public lands using conservation easments and outright purchase.

Recreation & Sports
5
Conservation Legacy

Conservation legacy engages future leaders who protect, restore, and enhance our nation's lands through community-based service.in 2024, conservation legacy engaged 2,524 participants who completed over 1.5 million service hours on public…

Youth Development
6
Lake Champlain Land Trust Inc

The mission of the lake champlain land trust is to save the scenic beauty, natural communities, and recreational amenities of lake champlain by permanently preserving significant islands, shoreline areas, and natural communities in the…

Environment
7
Legacy Land Conservancy

Safeguard southern michigan's land and water to support diverse, resilient, and thriving communities - forever

Environment
8
Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy

The mission of gtrlc is to protect significant natural, scenic and farm lands and advance land stewardship now and for future generations.

Environment
9
Native Plant Trust Inc

The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.

Environment
10
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
11
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
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 The Trust for Public Land; the most unlike its peers is Save the Maah Daah Hey. 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

15 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. 15 of the 22 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
14/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $124,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYTHE SAGE SCHOOL: $7,500 · OtherFLATHEAD VALLEY COLLEGE: $5,000 · OtherTHE GROUNDWORK CENTER: $5,000 · Other+6 more: $1,500 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $50,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWE…LEELANAU CONSERVANCY: $46,000 · EnvironmentLEELANAU CONSERVANCYJO DAVIESS CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $10,491 · EnvironmentJO DAVIESS CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC+5 more: $3,350 · EnvironmentPresident and Fellows of Middlebury College: $5,000 · EducationBUILDING ONE COMMUNITY CORP: $250 · Human ServicesFAITH IN PLACE: $200 · ReligionTHE LAND CONNECTION FOUNDATION INC: $100 · Food & Nutrition
Other$143,000Environment$109,841Education$5,000Human Services$250Religion$200Food & Nutrition$100

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $124,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $50,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetLEELANAU CONSERVANCY: $46,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetJO DAVIESS CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $10,491 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetPresident and Fellows of Middlebury College: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF NACHUSA GRASSLANDS: $500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCHICAGO HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY: $500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGLEN LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBUILDING ONE COMMUNITY CORP: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAITH IN PLACE: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LAND CONNECTION FOUNDATION INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE PRAIRIE ENTHUSIASTs INC: $100 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 Chicago Community…Illinois Clean Energy…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Chicago Community TrustIL13.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 WD Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from WD Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • President and Fellows of Middlebury College: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 WD Foundation?

Find your warmest path to WD Foundation 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.

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 22 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on WD’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