Skip to content
Conservation Society of California at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Conservation Society of California

Through management of oakland zoo, the CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA deepens connection with animals, saves wildlife, and inspires champions for the natural world.

$486k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$70k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Animals$1.1MEnvironment$621k
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 14 grants below total $350,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $485,610 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $135,610 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $225k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $120k
$25,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$93M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS$70,000
ARCAS$50,000
WORKING CIRCLE$40,000
ELEPHANT CRISIS FUND (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK)$30,000
BIG LIFE FOUNDTION$30,000
DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST$25,000
NEW NATURE FOUNDATION$25,000
ELEPHANT VOICES$20,000
WILD WELFARE$15,000
VENTANA WILDLIFE SOCIETY$10,000
KAMINANDO HABITAT CONNECIVITY INITIATIVE$10,000
RETETI ELEPHANT$10,000
FELIDAE CONSERVATION FUND - BAY AREA PUMA PROJECT$10,000
EWASO (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK)$5,000
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 34% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $72k → 10%GLACIER NATIONAL PARK CONSERVANCY: $24k → 11%NEW NATURE FOUNDATION: $55k → 22%BEAR LEAGUE FOUNDATION: $24k → 6%FELIDAE CONSERVATION FUND: $20k → 8%DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA: $50k → 10%KAMINANDO HABITAT CONNETIVITY INITIATIVE: $28k → 10%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $30k → 10%CALIFORNIA WOLF CENTER: $30k → 11%ELEPHANT VOICES: $20k → 14%WORKING CIRCLE: $55k → 7%INDIGENOUS LED (WILD FOUNDATION): $25k → 12%BIG LIFE FOUNDTION: $30k → 9%ARCAS: $50k → 14%AMBOSELI: $70k → 10%NEW NATURE FOUNDATION: $25k → 22%DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST: $25k → 10%KAMINANDO HABITAT CONNECIVITY INITIATIVE: $28k → 10%ELEPHANT CRISIS FUND (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK): $30k → 10%ELEPHANT VOICES: $20k → 14%WORKING CIRCLE: $40k → 7%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $30k → 9%ARCAS: $50k → 14%AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $70k → 10%NEW NATURE FOUNDATION: $23k → 22%DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST: $25k → 10%SAVE THE ELEPHANTS (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK): $30k → 10%ELEPHANT VOICES: $20k → 14%WORKING CIRCLE: $40k → 7%BIG LIFE FOUNDTION: $30k → 9%ARCAS: $27k → 14%AMBOSELI: $55k → 10%NEW NATURE FOUNDATION: $20k → 22%DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA: $25k → 10%ELEPHANT CRISIS FUND (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK): $30k → 10%VENTANA WILDLIFE SOCIETY: $25k → 12%WORKING CIRCLE: $40k → 7%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $30k → 9%ARCAS: $21k → 14%AMBOSELI: $30k → 10%NEW NATURE FOUNDATION: $18k → 22%DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST: $25k → 10%SAVE THE ELEPHANTS (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK): $30k → 10%WORKING CIRCLE: $40k → 7%BIG LIFE FOUNDTION: $30k → 9%ARCAS: $20k → 14%ELEPHANT VOICES: $20k → 10%ELEPHANT VOICES: $20k → 10%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

WA
MT
IL
NY
MA
PA
CA
CO
DC
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $88k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$88k · 100% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: ANNUAL GIVING GRANT · ANNUAL STUDENT GRANT

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 17 repeat orgs$74k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +94% since the first grant, against +53% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
4

Total granted

$2.0M
$59k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+94%
+53%

Still filing today

94%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • AT
    AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS
    5× · 2021–2025 · $297k · revenue +7%
  • MULTIPLIER
    7× · 2019–2025 · $260k · revenue +264%
  • AW
    ARCAS WILD LIFE RESCUE AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION LTD AKA ARCAS
    5× · 2021–2025 · $176k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • IW
    INTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue 0%
  • GLACIER NATIONAL PARK CONSERVANCYgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $24k · revenue +53%
  • AD
    ANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL INC USgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +250%
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
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
2
Wildlife Sos

Protecting india's precious wildlife from poaching, habitat loss, and human exploitation since 1995.

Animals
3
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
4
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
5
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
6
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
7
Wildlife Alliance Inc

Wildlife alliance is the leader in direct protection of forests and wildlife in tropical asia. our mission is to combat deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, and poverty by partnering with local communities and governments.…

Animals
8
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
9
Livewilder Foundation
—
10
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
11
Global Wildlife Foundation

Funding innovative veterinary research and supporting organizations dedicated to preserving and protecting wildlife for future generations.

Animals
12
Forever Wild Wildlife Rescue
Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lubee Foundation Inc. 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

22 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 22 of the 23 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
17/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $296,500 · AnimalsAMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTSARCAS WILD LIFE RESCUE AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION LTD AKA ARCAS: $176,100 · AnimalsARCAS WILD LIFE RESCUE AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION LTD AKA ARCASBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $150,000 · AnimalsBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USATHE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC: $150,000 · AnimalsTHE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INCWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $139,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INCVENTANA WILDLIFE SOCIETY: $110,500 · AnimalsVENTANA WILDLIFE SOCIETYELEPHANTVOICES: $100,000 · AnimalsELEPHANTVOICESFELIDAE CONSERVATION FUND: $75,000 · AnimalsFELIDAE CONSERVATION FUNDWildlife Conservation Society: $60,000 · Animals+5 more: $106,000 · Animals+5 moreMULTIPLIER: $260,000 · EnvironmentMULTIPLIERTHE NEW NATURE FOUNDATION: $156,200 · EnvironmentTHE NEW NATURE FOUNDATIONProyecto Titi Inc: $43,000 · EnvironmentProyecto Titi IncSARARA INSTITUTE: $30,000 · EnvironmentSARARA INSTITUTEKAMINANDO HABITAT CONNECTIVITY INITIATIVE: $101,400 · OtherKAMINANDO …LUBEE FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 · OtherLUBEE FOUN…CALIFORNIA WOLF CENTER: $30,000 · OtherCALIFORNIA…INTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · OtherINTERNATIO…GLACIER NATIONAL PARK CONSERVANCY: $23,500 · Recreation & Sports
Animals$1,363,100Environment$489,200Other$186,400Recreation & Sports$23,500

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 budgetAMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $296,500 over 5y, 8.0% of budgetMULTIPLIER: $260,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetARCAS WILD LIFE RESCUE AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION LTD AKA ARCAS: $176,100 over 5y, 13% of budgetTHE NEW NATURE FOUNDATION: $156,200 over 8y, 24% of budgetBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $150,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetTHE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC: $150,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $139,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetVENTANA WILDLIFE SOCIETY: $110,500 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetELEPHANTVOICES: $100,000 over 5y, 13% of budgetFELIDAE CONSERVATION FUND: $75,000 over 7y, 15% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $60,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetProyecto Titi Inc: $43,000 over 4y, 18% of budgetMountain Lion Foundation: $42,500 over 4y, 4.2% of budgetBEAR LEAGUE: $38,500 over 4y, 10% of budgetSARARA INSTITUTE: $30,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetLUBEE FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetINTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetGLACIER NATIONAL PARK CONSERVANCY: $23,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWILD WELFARE US: $15,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL INC US: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAsia Wild: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 Coville-Triest Fa…California Community …Shell USA Company Fou…Silicon Valley Commun…The Pfizer Foundation…Vanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…The Bank of America C…Fidelity Investments …
The Coville-Triest Family FoundationMI13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Coville-Triest Family Foundation · California Community Foundation · Shell USA Company Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Conservation Society of California funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Conservation Society of California. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 23 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 Conservation Society of California’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