Skip to content
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

The WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY protects and restores exceptional places to provide our region with clean waters and healthy forests, wildlife and natural areas for the benefit of present and future generations.

$47k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$7k
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$5.2MRecreation & Sports$44k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $17,669, the rows itemized in this filing. The $47,222 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $29,553 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.
$5,666
Median grant
2
States reached
$152M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SHENANGO RIVER WATCHERS$6,815
CLEARWATER CONSERVANCY OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA$5,666
LAND TRUST ALLIANCE$5,188
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 9%. 80% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER: $237k → 6%BUCKS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $24k → 6%ADAMS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $29k → 9%WEEDS INC: $150k → 10%CROW & BERRY LAND MANAGEMENT: $24k → 11%CROW & BERRY LAND MANAGEMENT: $203k → 11%FULTON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $40k → 11%AUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $25k → 11%SCHUYKILL HEADWATERS ASSOCIATION INC: $31k → 12%MS4 DEPARTMENT: $25k → 12%BRADFORD COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $84k → 12%LAWRENCE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER: $21k → 13%HUNTINGDON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $73k → 13%OPEN SESAME DESIGNS LLC: $114k → 13%FRENCH CREEK VALLEY CONSERVANCY: $25k → 14%JENNERSTOWN BOROUGH: $183k → 14%NATIVE CREATIONS LANDSCAPE SERVICES: $177k → 15%IRONWOOD FORESTRY: $45k → 16%FAIRMONT PARK CONSERVANCY OHIO HOUSE: $25k → 22%PROPAGATE GROUP PBC: $192k → 7%NATURESERVE: $25k → 7%ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: $84k → 6%STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER: $117k → 6%ARCHE WILD: $36k → 6%HORN FARM CENTER: $19k → 9%RISING LOCUST FARM: $55k → 9%FSF CONSERVATION CONTRACTORS LLC: $148k → 10%DELAWARE COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $16k → 10%AUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $21k → 11%BRADFORD COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $17k → 12%HUNTINGDON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $57k → 13%BLAIR COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $25k → 13%FRENCH CREEK VALLEY CONSERVANCY: $15k → 14%NATIVE CREATIONS LANDSCAPE SERVICES: $67k → 15%CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY: $50k → 6%STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER: $31k → 6%YORK COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $32k → 9%LAND STUDIES INC: $103k → 9%URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH: $2.0M → 11%HUNTINGDON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $29k → 13%NATIVE CREATIONS: $24k → 15%ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: $35k → 6%LONDON BRITAIN TOWNSHIP: $100k → 6%LAND STUDIES INC: $43k → 9%ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: $29k → 6%LAND STUDIES INC: $20k → 9%ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: $25k → 6%LAND STUDIES INC: $16k → 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.
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 45% of Western Pennsylvania Conservancy’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 92% of the giving stays in PA; by stated purpose, 49%.

Western Pennsylvania Conservancylessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 50% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

35%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.8M · 13 repeat orgs$3.4M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +162% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
33

Total granted

$1.8M
$3.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+162%
+23%

Still filing today

31%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k 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 & NutritionScience & TechOther
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

  • SW
    STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER
    3× · 2020–2022 · $385k · revenue +79%
  • AF
    ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY INC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $174k · revenue +169%
  • FC
    FRENCH CREEK VALLEY CONSERVANCY
    3× · 2018–2020 · $51k · revenue +162%

Funded once

  • UR
    URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH
    one grant, 2018 · $2.0M
  • PG
    PROPAGATE GROUP PBC
    one grant, 2022 · $192k
  • JB
    JENNERSTOWN BOROUGH
    one grant, 2018 · $183k
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
Pine Creek Valley Watershed Assoc

Watershed conservation & protection

Environment
2
Watershed Conservation Resource Center

The watershed conservation resource center strives to protect, conserve, and restore natural resources by utilizing the watershed approach, environmental outreach, and providing planning and technical assistance to landowners, communities,…

Environment
3
Swatara Watershed Association Inc

To promote the conservation of the Swatara Watersheds natural resources through scientific research, education, and conservation projects. This is accomplished by conducting investigations, providing information sponsoring projects, and…

Environment
4
Central Pennsylvania Conservancy Inc

The mission of Central Pennsylvania Conservancy (CPC) is to acquire, preserve, and protect local land and natural resources in a five-county, South-Central PA region. Our vision is to create a local network of permanently protected and…

Environment
5
Penns Valley Conservation Association

To serve as a steward for the natural and cultural communities in the upper Penns Creek Watershed. We seek to preserve and Honor the agricultural roots of Penns Valley by protecting and conserving its waters, farmland, forests and rural…

Environment
6
Chalfant Run-Thompson Run Watershed Association

Clean up waterways in the western pa region increase habitat for specific native wildlife

—
7
Lackawanna Valley Conservancy

The conservancy is organized to protect, preserve and acquire natural resources in the lackawanna valley for the benefit of the general public.

Environment
8
Chester Ridley Crum Watersheds Association

To support, encourage and promote the enjoyment, restoration, conservation, protection and prudent management of the natural resources of the chester, ridley, and crum watersheds

—
9
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
10
Chautauqua Watershed Conservancy Inc

The chautauqua watershed conservancy's mission is to preserve and enhance the water quality, scenic beauty, and ecological health of the lakes, streams, and watersheds of the chautauqua region.

Environment
11
Chagrin River Watershed Partners Inc

Preserving and enhancing the scenic and environmental quality of the ecosystem of the chagrin river, lake erie and other ohio watersheds in a manner which assures a sustainable future for people, plants and animals.

Human Services
12
West Creek Conservancy

Our mission is to enrich the lives of all people in northeast ohio by conserving natural habitats, restoring the ecological value of our region's lands and waters, and expanding opportunities to connect people from all cultures to…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Clearwater Conservancy of Central Pennsylvania Inc; the most unlike its peers is Shenango River Watchers Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

17 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. 17 of the 49 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
13/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH: $2,000,000 · OtherURBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGHNATIVE CREATIONS LANDSCAPE SERVICES: $243,990 · OtherNATIVE CREATIONS LANDSCAPE SERVICESCROW & BERRY LAND MANAGEMENT: $227,250 · OtherPROPAGATE GROUP PBC: $191,560 · OtherJENNERSTOWN BOROUGH: $183,178 · OtherLAND STUDIES INC: $180,475 · OtherHUNTINGDON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $158,517 · OtherFSF CONSERVATION CONTRACTORS LLC: $156,560 · OtherWEEDS INC: $150,000 · Other+23 more: $805,914 · Other+23 moreALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY INC: $173,567 · EnvironmentALLIANCE FO…CONEMAUGH VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC: $74,600 · EnvironmentCONEMAUGH V…FRENCH CREEK VALLEY CONSERVANCY: $50,632 · EnvironmentFRENCH CREE…CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC: $49,500 · EnvironmentCHESAPEAKE …AUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PA: $45,680 · EnvironmentAUDUBON SOC…SCHUYLKILL HEADWATERS ASSOCIATION INC: $30,505 · EnvironmentSCHUYLKILL …FAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY: $25,000 · EnvironmentNatureServe: $25,000 · Environment+7 more: $59,444 · Environment+7 moreSTROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER: $384,922 · Science & TechHORN FARM CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION: $18,668 · Food & Nutrition
Other$4,297,444Environment$533,928Science & Tech$384,922Food & Nutrition$18,668

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSTROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER: $384,922 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY INC: $173,567 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetCONEMAUGH VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC: $74,600 over 1y, 25% of budgetFRENCH CREEK VALLEY CONSERVANCY: $50,632 over 3y, 3.7% of budgetCHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC: $49,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetAUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PA: $45,680 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetSCHUYLKILL HEADWATERS ASSOCIATION INC: $30,505 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetFAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNatureServe: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHORN FARM CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION: $18,668 over 1y, 7.1% of budgetLOYALHANNA WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC: $13,875 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetOCTORARO WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $11,000 over 1y, 43% of budgetSewickley Creek Watershed Association: $10,400 over 1y, 18% of budgetSHENANGO RIVER WATCHERS INC: $6,815 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetBRANDYWINE RED CLAY ALLIANCE: $6,500 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 STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds ALLIANCE FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY INC ↗
  • Who funds CONEMAUGH VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds FRENCH CREEK VALLEY CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds AUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PA ↗
  • Who funds SCHUYLKILL HEADWATERS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds NatureServe ↗
  • Who funds HORN FARM CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds LOYALHANNA WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds OCTORARO WATERSHED ASSOCIATION ↗

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…Foundation for Pennsy…Richard King Mellon F…Lancaster County Comm…The Pittsburgh Founda…The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC30.2× affinity15 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds · Richard King Mellon Foundation · Lancaster County Community Foundation · The Pittsburgh Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Western Pennsylvania Conservancy funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 28%
  • Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Inc: 28% of income from government
  • Chesapeake Conservancy Inc: 27% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
6report 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 49 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 Western Pennsylvania Conservancy’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