Skip to content
Leiden Conservation Foundation at a glance

· 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.

$586k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$452k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0174% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Animals$3.4MEducation$115kEnvironment$45kArts & Culture$31kInternational$18kYouth Development$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $36k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $94k
  • $250k+1 grant · $452k
$20,048
Median grant
2
States reached
$332k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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.

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 81% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $30k → 10%ARTS FOR ANIMALS: $10k → 16%LION LANDSCAPES - EMPOWER AFRICA: $25k → 17%RWANDA WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $13k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $21k → 16%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $452k → 9%NORTH CAROLINA ZOO: $30k → 14%FOSSEY FUND: $50k → 13%COLUMBUS ZOO: $7k → 5%BLACK SWAMP BIRD OBSERVATORY: $15k → 10%AKRON ZOO: $20k → 13%ENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST: $94k → 17%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $612k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $15k → 9%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $25k → 10%MARALLIANCE: $15k → 16%RWANDA WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $20k → 16%NORTH CAROLINA ZOO: $25k → 14%FOSSEY FUND: $30k → 13%COLUMBUS ZOO AND AQUARIUM: $6k → 5%BLACK SWAMP BIRD OBSERVATORY: $15k → 10%AKRON ZOO: $20k → 13%NELSON MANDELA UNIVERSITY: $20k → 17%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $365k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $15k → 9%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $25k → 10%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $11k → 16%NORTH CAROLINA ZOO: $15k → 14%AKRON ZOO: $20k → 13%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $243k → 19%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $19k → 10%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $10k → 16%NORTH CAROLINA ZOO: $10k → 14%AKRON ZOO: $16k → 13%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $226k → 19%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $18k → 10%NATURE CENTER AT SHAKER LAKES: $10k → 17%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $183k → 19%CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $95k → 17%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $182k → 19%CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $70k → 17%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $145k → 19%CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $65k → 17%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $77k → 19%GIRAFFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $21k → 17%GIRAFFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $20k → 17%CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY: $20k → 17%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
ID
WI
MI
NY
OH
CA
CO
NC
DC
GA
TX

Beyond the US: 14% of all-years giving ($556k)

6 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
South Africa$417k · 9 grants
Canada$63k · 1 grant
United Kingdom$48k · 3 grants
Kenya$15k · 1 grant
Costa Rica$8k · 1 grant
Cabo Verde$6k · 1 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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.9M · 20 repeat orgs$241k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +58% since the first grant, against +52% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

20
19

Total granted

$3.9M
$217k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+58%
+52%

Still filing today

55%
32%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $23k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentEducationArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentInternationalOther
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

  • INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.5M · revenue +57%
  • CZ
    CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY
    4× · 2017–2023 · $233k · revenue +72%
  • WC
    WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC
    6× · 2017–2022 · $122k · revenue +302%

Funded once

  • PS
    PROJECT SEAHORSE
    one grant, 2022 · $63k
  • BC
    BRISTOL CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $29k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $25k
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
Conservation Farms & Ranches

Preserving and enhancing the habitat of wildlife, such as sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, which habitat expenses are supported by agricultural activities.

Housing & Shelter
2
International Center for the Preservation of Wild Animals Inc

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…

Animals
3
Racine Zoological Society Inc

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…

Animals
4
Sacramento Zoological Society

The sacramento zoo inspires appreciation, respect and a connection with wildlife and nature through education, recreation and conservation.

Animals
5
Naples Zoo Inc

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…

Animals
6
Rainforest Trust

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

International
7
Akron Zoological Park

We connect your life to wildlife while inspiring lifelong learning and conservation action.

Animals
8
Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society

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…

Animals
9
Zoological Society of Pittsburgh

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,…

Animals
10
Cincinnati Zoo Foundation Inc

Perform fundraising functions, provide financial support, carryout the purpose and otherwise operating for the benefit of the zoological society of cincinnati.

Animals
11
Red River Zoological Society

As conservation leaders, the red river zoo connects our community to nature and inspires people to help save species.

Animals
12
Natural Resources Foundation of

To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cleveland Zoological Society; 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.
04the grantee network

17 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. 17 of the 41 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
15/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC: $2,483,502 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INCCLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $233,000 · AnimalsCLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETYWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $121,500 · Animals+6 more: $85,712 · AnimalsENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUST: $304,941 · OtherENDANGERED WILDLIFE TRUSTSANCCOB: $198,407 · OtherSANCCOBFOSSEY FUND: $80,000 · OtherFOSSEY FUNDIndividual grant recipient: $80,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $76,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPROJECT SEAHORSE: $62,500 · OtherPROJECT SEAHORSEGIRAFFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $41,000 · Other+17 more: $184,165 · Other+17 moreMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $61,545 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $33,000 · EducationCLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY: $25,000 · Arts & CultureMARALLIANCE: $17,500 · InternationalSHAKER LAKES REGIONAL NATURE CENTER DBA NATURE CENTER AT SHAKER LAKES: $10,000 · EnvironmentTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC: $5,000 · EnvironmentWESTERN RESERVE LAND CONSERVANCY: $1,000 · EnvironmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WEST CENTRAL WIS: $1,970 · Youth Development
Animals$2,923,714Other$1,027,013Education$94,545Arts & Culture$25,000International$17,500Environment$16,000Youth Development$1,970

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 CRANE FOUNDATION INC: $2,483,502 over 9y, 4.0% of budgetCLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $233,000 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $121,500 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $61,545 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $33,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBLACK SWAMP BIRD OBSERVATORY: $30,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetCOLORADO CRANE CONSERVATION COALITION IN: $25,000 over 5y, 3.4% of budgetCLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY: $25,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMARALLIANCE: $17,500 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetSHAKER LAKES REGIONAL NATURE CENTER DBA NATURE CENTER AT SHAKER LAKES: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAVE GIRAFFES NOW: $9,500 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCOLUMBUS ZOOLOGICAL PARK ASSOCIATION: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHouston Zoo Inc: $5,212 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC: $5,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WEST CENTRAL WIS: $1,970 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWESTERN RESERVE LAND CONSERVANCY: $1,000 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.

  • 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 ↗

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 Blackbaud Giving …Vanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Blackbaud Giving FundSC9.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Leiden Conservation Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Leiden Conservation 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
    3report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 41 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-PF 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 Leiden Conservation’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