Skip to content
American Association of Zoo Keepers at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

American Association of Zoo Keepers

The AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOO KEEPERS exists to advance excellence in the animal keeping profession, foster effective communication beneficial to animal care, support deserving conservation projects, and promote the preservation of our natural resources and animal life.

$335k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$148k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Animals$2.5MEnvironment$48k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $324,350, the rows itemized in this filing. The $335,100 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,750 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $24k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $284k
$24,320
Median grant
5
States reached
$678k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEWA WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY$147,692
INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION$136,799
ACTION FOR CHEETAHS IN KENYA$24,320
ZOO OUTREACH ORGANIZATION USA$9,279
AAZK OMAHA CHAPTER$6,260
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%AAZK OMAHA CHAPTER: $6k → 12%THE PEREGRINE FUND: $12k → 8%NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $10k → 9%LEWA WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY: $278k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $265k → 11%ACTION FOR CHEETAHS IN KENYA: $25k → 8%RED PANDA NETWORK: $10k → 15%CHEETAH CONSERVATION FUND: $46k → 9%SAVE THE GOLDEN LION TAMARIN: $11k → 8%THE PEREGRINE FUND: $12k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $200k → 11%ACTION FOR CHEETAHS IN KENYA: $24k → 8%RED PANDA NETWORK: $9k → 15%CHEETAH CONSERVATION FUND: $35k → 9%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $156k → 11%ACTION FOR CHEETAHS IN KENYA: $24k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $137k → 11%ACTION FOR CHEETAHS IN KENYA: $22k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $137k → 11%ACTION FOR CHEETAHS IN KENYA: $17k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $119k → 11%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $100k → 11%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

ID
MT
MI
NY
OR
CA
NE
VA
MD
TX
FL
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 7 repeat orgs$36k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
2

Total granted

$2.5M
$20k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+82%
+547%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
AnimalsRecreation & SportsEnvironmentOther
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

  • TI
    THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION
    7× · 2017–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +27%
  • LW
    Lewa Wildlife Conservancy USA
    7× · 2017–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +49%
  • CL
    CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES
    5× · 2020–2024 · $113k · revenue +354% · 76% of their budget

Funded once

  • ST
    SAVE THE GOLDEN LION TAMARIN
    one grant, 2018 · $11k · revenue -16%
  • NF
    NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +547%
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
Zambia Carnivore Programme

To safeguard large carnivores, their prey, and habitat in zambia through applied research, conservation, and education.

Animals
2
International Primate Protection League

Protecting the world's remaining primates by monitoring and exposing illegal trade, supporting a worldwide network of overseas sanctuaries and ngo's, publicising the plight of abused primates, and operating a sanctuary for resued gibbons.

Animals
3
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
4
Sos Rhino
Animals
5
Mozparks Initiative Inc

Mozparks initiativ, inc has been established to address and defeat the onslaught on elephant, rhino, and other species of wildlife and the habitat of wildlife in mozambique. mozparks partners with non-governmental organizations, local…

—
6
African Wildlife Foundation Inc

Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…

Animals
7
Speak Out for Animals

Animal and Wildlife legal framework

Animals
8
Noble Gorilla Reserve Foundation
—
9
Panthera Corporation

Panthera's mission is the conservation of the world's 40 wild cat species, many of which are endangered or threatened. panthera develops, implements and oversees wild cat conservation strategies on a global scale.

Animals
10
Born Free Foundation
—
11
Mpala Wildlife Foundation Inc
—
12
Manu

The corporation is organized for the charitable, educational and scientific purpose of supporting biological research, protection of wildlife and habitat management in amozonian coutries.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cheetah Conservation Fund; the most unlike its peers is Zoo Outreach Organisation. 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

11 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.

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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
9/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $1,114,252 · AnimalsTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATIONLewa Wildlife Conservancy USA: $1,105,988 · AnimalsLewa Wildlife Conservancy USACheetah Conservation Fund: $81,341 · Animals+3 more: $36,150 · AnimalsCARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES: $113,165 · OtherTHE PEREGRINE FUND INC: $23,084 · OtherFLORIDA STATE PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $38,757 · Recreation & SportsNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $9,563 · Recreation & SportsZOO OUTREACH ORGANISATION: $9,279 · Environment
Animals$2,337,731Other$136,249Recreation & Sports$48,320Environment$9,279

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 budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $1,114,252 over 7y, 7.7% of budgetLewa Wildlife Conservancy USA: $1,105,988 over 7y, 9.4% of budgetCARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES: $113,165 over 5y, 76% of budgetCheetah Conservation Fund: $81,341 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetTHE PEREGRINE FUND INC: $23,084 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetRED PANDA NETWORK: $19,388 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $9,563 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetZOO OUTREACH ORGANISATION: $9,279 over 1y, 10% of budgetOMAHA ZOO FOUNDATION: $6,260 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 Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Bank of America Charitable Foundation IncNC8.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation 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 American Association of Zoo Keepers funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from American Association of Zoo Keepers. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get no government money at all
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to American Association of Zoo Keepers?

    Find your warmest path to American Association of Zoo Keepers 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 11 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on American Association of Zoo Keepers’ 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