Skip to content
International Crane Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

International Crane Foundation Inc

The international crane foundation is committed to a world where cranes, people, and our natural heritage thrive together.

$3.2M
Granted FY2026still arriving
2
Grants FY2026still arriving
2
States reached
$43k
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 2025.

Animals$257kEmployment$125kPublic Safety & Disaster$20kArts & Culture$8k
02FY2026 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $48,150, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,157,582 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $3,109,432 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 · FY2026

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $43k
$42,750
Median grant
2
States reached
$71M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OKLAHOMA CONSERVATION COMMISSION$42,750
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION$5,400
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 (FY17–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CRANE TRUST: $10k → 12%PORT ARANSAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10k → 17%ROCKPORT-FULTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10k → 17%OKLAHOMA CONSERVATION COMMISSION: $43k → 16%AUBURN UNIVERSITY: $8k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $5k → 10%OCEAN OUTCOMES: $80k → 12%WHITE OAK CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $99k → 14%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL CENTER: $66k → 19%OKLAHOMA CONSERVATION COMMISSION: $30k → 16%OCEAN OUTCOMES: $5k → 12%WHITE OAK CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $26k → 14%LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL CENTER: $59k → 19%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

IL
WI
OR
NE
OK
LA
AL
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $3.1M on the FY2026 return

Schedule F, as filed: 4 regions, $2.9M to organizations and $122k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$2.3M · 74% · 9 grants · 3 people

Stated purpose: CRANE PRESERVATION · ASSISTANCE TO ICF ZAMBIA

East Asia and the Pacific$657k · 22% · 8 grants · 2 people

Stated purpose: CRANE PRESERVATION

South Asia$127k · 4% · 6 grants · 5 people

Stated purpose: CRANE PRESERVATION

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$2k · 0% · 1 person

Stated purpose: CRANE PRESERVATION

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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$408k · 4 repeat orgs$50k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2026, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$408k
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
+8%

Still filing today

50%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
AnimalsEnvironmentEducationOther
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

  • LS
    LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2023–2024 · $125k
  • WO
    WHITE OAK CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $125k · revenue -68%
  • OO
    OCEAN OUTCOMES
    2× · 2019–2020 · $85k · revenue +40%

Funded once

  • PA
    PORT ARANSAS TOURISM BUREAU AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCEgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +155%
  • PR
    PLATTE RIVER WHOOPING CRANE MAINTENANCE TRUST INC
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +8%
  • RA
    Rockport-Fulton Area Chamber of Commerce
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue -17%
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
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 10 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
4/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $124,982 · OtherLOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $72,750 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMAPORT ARANSAS TOURISM BUREAU AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10,000 · OtherRockport-Fulton Area Chamber of Commerce: $10,000 · Other+2 more: $14,500 · Other+2 moreWHITE OAK CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $124,981 · AnimalsWHITE OAK CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INCOCEAN OUTCOMES: $85,000 · AnimalsOCEAN OUTCOMESPLATTE RIVER WHOOPING CRANE MAINTENANCE TRUST INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $5,400 · Education
Other$232,232Animals$209,981Environment$10,000Education$5,400

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWHITE OAK CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $124,981 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetOCEAN OUTCOMES: $85,000 over 2y, 6.5% of budgetPORT ARANSAS TOURISM BUREAU AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPLATTE RIVER WHOOPING CRANE MAINTENANCE TRUST INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRockport-Fulton Area Chamber of Commerce: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization International Crane Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Crane Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 10 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on International Crane’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