Charity ClarityProtect nature
A forest holds more than trees. Land, rivers, and wildlife are connected, and protecting them takes many kinds of work.
Compare 24 charities ↓Distinguish land protection, advocacy, and field programs. Their costs and results look different.
Protect nature · 24 organizations
24 charities
Organizes volunteer environmental service projects to restore public lands.
About $90 of every $100 spent went toward public land restoration.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Helps communities apply science and policy to landscape restoration and habitat connectivity.
About $76 of every $100 spent went toward landscape restoration and conservation planning.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Engages young people in environmental service and leadership development in Minnesota and Iowa.
About $74 of every $100 spent went toward environmental service and youth development.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Preserves natural areas, restores habitats and works to protect rivers and watersheds.
About $84 of every $100 spent went toward land, river and watershed conservation.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Engages participants in land stewardship projects alongside education, training and workforce development.
About $92 of every $100 spent went toward land stewardship and conservation training.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Provides conservation information and works to shape Minnesota’s environmental priorities.
About $62 of every $100 spent went toward conservation education and policy.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Funds and supports conservationists and provides wildlife conservation education for young people.
About $77 of every $100 spent went toward conservation grants and youth education.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Supports environmental education, community projects and civic participation in Nebraska.
About $92 of every $100 spent went toward conservation education and community engagement.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Works to protect and reconnect wildlife habitat from coastal Washington to the British Columbia Rockies.
About $77 of every $100 spent went toward wildland and wildlife conservation.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Runs fuel-efficient stove and sustainable agriculture programs where community needs and wildlife conservation intersect.
About $81 of every $100 spent went toward conservation, efficient stoves and agriculture.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Supports protection of threatened national parks and UNESCO World Heritage sites in developing countries.
About $84 of every $100 spent went toward national park and heritage-site conservation.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Removes invasive species from islands as part of wildlife and habitat conservation.
About $77 of every $100 spent went toward island restoration and wildlife conservation.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Uses natural burial practices as part of land preservation and restoration in Tennessee.
About $68 of every $100 spent went toward land conservation and natural burial.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Helps conservation groups develop projects, research opportunities, raise funds and engage local communities.
About $97 of every $100 spent went toward conservation project support.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Protects and restores natural land in Minnesota for wildlife habitat, water resources and outdoor access.
About $89 of every $100 spent went toward natural land protection and restoration.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Environmental advocacy, legal work and research.
About $76 of every $100 spent went toward environmental law and research.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Works with landowners and partners to protect and manage natural and agricultural land in Placer County.
About $94 of every $100 spent went toward natural and agricultural land conservation.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Forest conservation and more sustainable farming practices.
About $84 of every $100 spent went toward forest protection and sustainable farming.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Charitable support for environmental protection and education.
About $84 of every $100 spent went toward environmental protection and education.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Builds partnerships to address conservation challenges involving California’s land, air and water.
About $72 of every $100 spent went toward collaborative land, air and water conservation.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Conservation of lands and waters around the world.
About $74 of every $100 spent went toward protecting land and water.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Supports nature and marine conservation and the development of early-career conservationists.
About $84 of every $100 spent went toward nature conservation and practitioner training.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Works to protect and restore wildlands and biodiversity, including land intended for public parks and reserves.
About $52 of every $100 spent went toward wildland protection and ecosystem restoration.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →Wildlife conservation and protection of natural environments.
About $79 of every $100 spent went toward protecting wildlife and nature.
A financial snapshot, not a measure of charitable impact.
View scorecard →Compare with another charity →No charities match. Try a different name or cause.
Land & water
Healthy rivers and living forests are part of the same story. Explore each organization’s approach to conservation in its scorecard.
