Skip to content
Denver Zoological Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Denver Zoological Foundation

Inspiring communities to save wildlife for future generations.

$365k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$40k
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.

Animals$143kEnvironment$120kEducation$96kScience & Tech$40k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $101,400, the rows itemized in this filing. The $364,958 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $263,558 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 $10k1 grant · $10k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $92k
$19,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$33M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY$40,000
REWILD$22,000
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY$19,500
INTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION$10,000
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE$9,900
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 44% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 15%CONSERVATION SCIENCE PARTNERS: $19k → 11%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $20k → 28%HERMIT'S PEAK WATERSHED ALLIANCE: $8k → 23%SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE: $10k → 14%IDEA WILD: $5k → 11%ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD: $13k → 12%CONSERVATION SCIENCE PARTNERS: $11k → 11%NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY: $21k → 23%SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE: $9k → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD: $10k → 12%NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY: $16k → 23%SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE: $6k → 14%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $254k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions, $126k to organizations and $128k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

South America$128k · 50% · 3 people

Stated purpose: PROJECT SUPPORT

East Asia and the Pacific$74k · 29% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SAMARKILANG RESEARCH

Sub-Saharan Africa$42k · 16% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: SALARY SUPPORT FOR V · LION MONITORING SUPP

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$10k · 4% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CAPACITY BUILDING, G

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.
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 31% of Denver Zoological Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Denver Zoological Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 23% 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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$340k · 8 repeat orgs$59k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
5

Total granted

$340k
$39k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%
+109%

Still filing today

75%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
AnimalsEnvironmentScience & TechArts & CultureOther
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

  • IE
    INTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION
    4× · 2017–2024 · $55k · revenue +70%
  • REWILD
    2× · 2023–2024 · $45k · revenue +41%
  • CS
    Conservation Science Partners Inc
    2× · 2019–2020 · $30k · revenue +74%

Funded once

  • MH
    MOORE HYDROLOGY LLC
    one grant, 2017 · $12k
  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • HP
    Hermits Peak Watershed Alliancegraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $8k · revenue +136%
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
Rainforest Trust

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

International
2
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
3
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
4
Defenders of Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

Animals
5
CalWild

The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.

—
6
Wildlife Protection Solutions

To protect endangered species.

Animals
7
The Earth Species Project

The Earth Species Project (ESP) develops frontier AI to amplify the voices of nature, creating new pathways for the transformation of our systemsand ourselves. We envision a relationship with the rest of nature that allows the diversity of…

—
8
Endangered Species International

Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.

Animals
9
Intertribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council
—
10
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia'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
11
Wild Earth Allies Inc

Our mission is to protect vital areas of our planet for wildlife and people through local conservation action. Our vision is a world where wildlife and people flourish in healthy ecosystems that sustain us all.

Environment
12
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rocky Mountain Wild; the most unlike its peers is Smithsonian Institution. 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

10 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. 10 of the 14 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
10/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: $80,000 · OtherCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITYNEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY: $61,505 · OtherNEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITYMOORE HYDROLOGY LLC: $12,028 · OtherMOORE HYDROLOGY LLCREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: $9,947 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADOINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION: $55,000 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATIONREWILD: $45,000 · AnimalsREWILDWildlife Conservation Society: $19,500 · AnimalsWildlife Conservation SocietyAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INC: $5,000 · AnimalsConservation Science Partners Inc: $30,194 · Science & TechConservation…IDEA WILD INC: $15,000 · Science & TechIDEA WILD IN…ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD: $28,269 · EnvironmentROCKY MOUNT…Hermits Peak Watershed Alliance: $7,500 · EnvironmentHermits Pea…THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $5,000 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST F…SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $24,600 · Arts & Culture
Other$163,480Animals$124,500Science & Tech$45,194Environment$40,769Arts & Culture$24,600

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 budgetINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION: $55,000 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetREWILD: $45,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetConservation Science Partners Inc: $30,194 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD: $28,269 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $24,600 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $19,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHermits Peak Watershed Alliance: $7,500 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INC: $5,000 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.

National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA8.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Denver Zoological Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Denver Zoological Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    0get no government money at all
    1report 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 14 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 Denver Zoological’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