· Private foundation
Leiden Conservation Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $3k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $36k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $94k
- $250k+1 grant · $452k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION | $452,013 |
| ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST | $94,310 |
| NELSON MANDELA UNIVERSITY | $20,048 |
| Individual grant recipient | $16,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,200 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your US giving — 86% of grant dollars ($3.5M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 14% that went abroad ($556k) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 81% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Beyond the US — 14% of all-years giving ($556k)
6 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +72% since the first grant, against +52% for the ones you funded once.
20 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 17 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $23k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $2.5M · revenue +2%- CZCLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY4× · 2017–2023 · $233k · revenue +72%
- WCWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC6× · 2017–2022 · $122k · revenue +302%
Funded once
- PSPROJECT SEAHORSEone grant, 2022 · $63k
- BCBRISTOL CONSERVATION FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $29k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $25k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.
The wilds is a conservation center and safari park operating as a not-for-profit 501(c)3 organization on nearly 10,000-acres in southeastern ohio. the wilds specializes in high-quality recreational opportunities that focus on connecting…
The mission of the racine zoological society is to foster an enlightening and affordable wildlife experience that improves the bond between people and nature. the society will provide for the recreation and education of the people, the…
The sacramento zoo inspires appreciation, respect and a connection with wildlife and nature through education, recreation and conservation.
Naples zoo is accredited by the american zoo & aquarium association (aza) and has numerous animal exhibits placed on its 45-acre site. (continued on schedule o)each exhibit is unique and designed to simulate typical conditions for the…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
We connect your life to wildlife while inspiring lifelong learning and conservation action.
The cheyenne mountain zoological society owns and operates the cheyenne mountain zoo. a leader in conservation, captive breeding and animal care, the zoo connects people with wildlife and wild places through experiences that inspire…
The zoological society of pittsburgh is dedicated to being a leader in, and significant contributor to, the conservation of endangered and threatened species. the society provides an enjoyable family experience that fosters understanding,…
Perform fundraising functions, provide financial support, carryout the purpose and otherwise operating for the benefit of the zoological society of cincinnati.
As conservation leaders, the red river zoo connects our community to nature and inspires people to help save species.
To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cleveland Zoological Society and the most unlike its peers is Boys and Girls Clubs of West Central Wis. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 41 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BLACK SWAMP BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
- Who funds COLORADO CRANE CONSERVATION COALITION IN ↗
- Who funds CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY ↗
- Who funds MARALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds SHAKER LAKES REGIONAL NATURE CENTER DBA NATURE CENTER AT SHAKER LAKES ↗
- Who funds ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds SAVE GIRAFFES NOW ↗
- Who funds COLUMBUS ZOOLOGICAL PARK ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Houston Zoo Inc ↗
- Who funds TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WEST CENTRAL WIS ↗
- Who funds WESTERN RESERVE LAND CONSERVANCY ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Leiden Conservation Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Leiden Conservation Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Leiden Conservation Foundation 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.