Loading…
· Public charity
WESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY
Protection of outstanding river ecosystems in the western united states.
$7.8M
Granted FY2023
1
Grants
1
Communities
$84k
Largest
01What you fund
0193% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2023.
Environment$1.2MCommunity Improvement$300kEducation$12kOther$120k
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2019
conservation stewardship
2020
—
2022
—
2023
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2023 · 1 grant
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$84,337
Median grant
1
States reached
$65M
Total assets
Largest grants
- THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION$84,337
02The need
04
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.
show:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 13% — the area typically sits at 9%. 69% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
24%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$392k · 3 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +307% since the first grant, against -33% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2023, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
3
5
Total granted
$392k
$1.2M
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+307%
-33%
Still filing today
67%
100%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $84k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEducationOther
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- COCOLORADO OPEN LANDS FOUNDATION2× · 2018–2019 · $192k · revenue +307% · 42% of their budget
- RGRIO GRANDE HEADWATERS LAND TRUST2× · 2018–2019 · $164k · revenue -7%
- TYTHE YUROK TRIBE4× · 2018–2022 · $35k
Funded once
- ENER'- NERR' LAND FUND CO THE YUROK TRIBEone grant, 2018 · $742k · revenue -99%
- OFOPPORTUNITY FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $300k · revenue +86%
- MDMOJAVE DESERT LAND TRUSTone grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue -50%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
San Isabel Land Protection Trust
The principal mission of the land trust is to work with landowners to protect agricultural and forest lands, water resources, wildlife habitat and scenic open spaces, and to serve our community by facilitating parks and trail in custer,…
—
2
Oregon Agricultural Trust
Oregon agricultural trust partners with farmers and ranchers to protect agricultural lands for the benefit of oregons economy, communities, and landscapes.
Environment
3
Oregon Rangeland Trust
Preserving the natural environment by acquiring ecologically significant land.
Environment
4
Colorado Open Lands
Colorado open lands' mission is to preserve the significant open lands and natural heritage of colorado through private and public partnerships, innovative land conservation, and strategic leadership.
Environment
5
Northern California Regional Land Trust
Conservation of agricultural lands, open space, wildlife habitat and natural resources within butte, glenn, and tehama counties.
Environment
6
Aspen Valley Land Trust
Protecting the open land and special places of the roaring fork and middle colorado river valleys for wildlife, agriculture, and community forever.
Environment
7
The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo
|to conserve and care for wildlands, farms, and ranches, and connect people to the land.
Environment
8
Placer Land Trust
Land conservation in Placer County, to date over 21,000 acres preserved.
Environment
9
Colorado Headwaters Land Trust
To conserve and steward the open lands and natural character of the headwaters of the colorado river in partnership with the local community.
—
10
Feather River Land Trust
(See Schedule O)The Feather River Land Trust has as its mission to conserve the lands and waters of the Feather River region and steward their ecological,cultural and educational values for current and future generations. The Land Trust…
Environment
11
Cuenca Los Ojos
Cuenca los ojos works to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the us/mexican borderlands through land protection, habitat restoration and wildlife reintroduction.
Environment
12
Cascadia Wildlands
Cascadia wildands defends and restores cascadia'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
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust and the most unlike its peers is Tubatulabals of Kern Valley. 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
9 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Environment$1,207,925Community Improvement$300,000Other$119,835Education$11,737
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.
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCA5.1× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 organisation WESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
- Oregon State University Foundation — 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: COLORADO OPEN LANDS FOUNDATION.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
medium risk
~5 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 8 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 4.1× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 841072741 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on COLORADO OPEN LANDS FOUNDATION, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- WatchFinancial stability— Roughly 5 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 42% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Western Rivers Conservancy?
Find your warmest path to Western Rivers Conservancy through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines