Skip to content
Living Desert The at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Living Desert The

The living desert mission is to enhance desert conservation through preservation, education and appreciation.

$465k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$85k
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$651kEnvironment$95kEducation$66kArts & Culture$40k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $197,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $464,689 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $267,189 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

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $113k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $85k
$12,500
Median grant
6
States reached
$171M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC$85,000
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION$20,000
WILDLIFE PROTECTION SOLUTIONS$20,000
SAVING SLOWPOKE INCORPORATED$20,000
WILD NATURE INSTITUTE$12,500
NATIONAL MARINE MAMMAL FOUNDATION$10,000
USGS SOUTHWESTERN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CENTER$10,000
CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES USA$10,000
GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIATION$10,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 46% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%SAHARA CONSERVATION FUND: $20k → 15%USGS SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CENTER: $25k → 16%GLOBAL CONSERVATION NEWTWORK: $5k → 6%SPECIES 360: $11k → 11%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $85k → 10%NATIONAL MARINE MAMMAL FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%ONEFUTURE COACHELLA VALLEY: $27k → 11%SAVING SLOWPOKE INCORPORATED: $20k → 14%GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $20k → 11%CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES USA: $10k → 8%WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY - JOSHUA TREE GENOME PROJECT: $8k → 14%WILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $13k → 12%THE NORTH CAROLINA ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $5k → 14%WILDLIFE PROTECTION SOLUTIONS: $20k → 7%AFRICAN CONSERVATION CENTRE US: $10k → 12%APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $20k → 6%GIRAFFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION USA: $5k → 17%TIMOTHY A SHIELDS HARDSHELL LABS: $20k → 10%CHICAGO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $9k → 14%CHEETAH CONSERVATION FUND: $10k → 9%SAHARA CONSERVATION FUND: $10k → 15%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $70k → 10%ONEFUTURE COACHELLA VALLEY: $9k → 11%GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES USA: $10k → 8%WILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $10k → 12%AFRICAN CONSERVATION CENTRE US: $5k → 12%CHICAGO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $5k → 14%CHEETAH CONSERVATION FUND: $10k → 9%SAHARA CONSERVATION Fund: $10k → 15%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $56k → 10%ONEFUTURE COACHELLA VALLEY: $7k → 11%GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES USA: $10k → 8%WILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $10k → 12%CHICAGO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $5k → 14%SAHARA CONSERVATION Fund - ANNUAL PLEDGE: $5k → 15%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $35k → 10%RIVERSIDE ARTS COUNCIL: $40k → 11%GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO ASSOCIATION: $10k → 14%CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES USA: $10k → 8%WILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $10k → 12%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $30k → 10%GREATER LOS ANGELES ZOO: $5k → 14%WILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $10k → 12%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $20k → 10%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $12k → 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

AK
MN
IL
MI
OR
OH
CA
CO
VA
AZ
NC
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $219k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

East Asia and the Pacific$164k · 75% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CONSERVATION SUPPORT - TRANSFERS TO MCI (PASS THRU OF FUNDS FROM EARTHWATCH AND TMU AND GENERAL FUNDING BY TLD)

Sub-Saharan Africa$45k · 21% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CONSERVATION SUPPORT - DONATIONS TO BUSH BABIES AND BMAPU

North America (Canada and Mexico)$10k · 5% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CONSERVATION SUPPORT - ANNUAL DONATION

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 15% of Living Desert The’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 56% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 41%.

Living Desert Thelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 29% 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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$653k · 10 repeat orgs$199k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against +28% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
11

Total granted

$653k
$129k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+28%

Still filing today

90%
73%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEducationInternationalEnvironmentArts & 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

  • WC
    WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $308k · revenue +296%
  • WN
    WILD NATURE INSTITUTE
    6× · 2018–2025 · $53k · revenue +43%
  • OC
    ONEFUTURE COACHELLA VALLEY
    3× · 2020–2024 · $43k · revenue +246%

Funded once

  • RA
    Riverside Arts Council
    one grant, 2020 · $40k · revenue -4%
  • TA
    TIMOTHY A SHIELDS HARDSHELL LABS
    one grant, 2024 · $20k
  • TI
    THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue +14%
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 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.

Animals
2
Rainforest Trust

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

International
3
Zambia Carnivore Programme

To safeguard large carnivores, their prey, and habitat in zambia through applied research, conservation, and education.

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
Wildlife Sos

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

Animals
6
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
7
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
8
Wildlife Conservation Global Inc

Wildlife conservation global, inc. operates the okapi conservation project (ocp) which works in the democratic republic of the congo with the institute in congo for the conservation of nature (iccn) and local communities throughout the…

Animals
9
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc

The Fossey Fund is dedicated to the conservation and study of gorillas in Africa through a successful, people-centered approach: 1) Providing daily protection to gorillas, 2) Scientific research providing critical data on gorillas and…

—
10
Int'l Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources - Us

Iucn-us fund builds bridges between us donors and iucn by catalyzing, accelerating, funding and promoting iucn's work - conserving nature and natural resources in the united states and throughout the world.

Environment
11
Zoo Outreach Organisation

Wildlife conservation, research and education.

Environment
12
Wildlife Conservation Society

The wildlife conservation society (wcs) saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature.

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 Carnivores Livelihoods and Landscapes. 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

20 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. 20 of the 25 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
13/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $308,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INCWILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $52,500 · AnimalsWILD NATURE INSTITUTEGREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: $45,000 · AnimalsGREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONWILDLIFE PROTECTION SOLUTIONS: $20,000 · AnimalsCheetah Conservation Fund: $20,000 · AnimalsTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $20,000 · AnimalsChicago Zoological Society: $19,000 · Animals+4 more: $25,400 · AnimalsUS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY: $65,000 · OtherUS GEOLOGICAL SURVEYCARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES: $40,000 · OtherCARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS A…TIMOTHY A SHIELDS HARDSHELL LABS: $20,000 · OtherTIMOTHY A SHIELDS HARDSH…SAVING SLOW POKE INC: $20,000 · OtherSAVING SLOW POKE INCAPPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherAPPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL RE…SPECIES360: $10,816 · OtherSPECIES360+2 more: $10,000 · Other+2 moreONEFUTURE COACHELLA VALLEY: $43,200 · EducationAFRICAN CONSERVATION CENTRE US: $15,000 · EducationWILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY: $8,000 · EducationSAHARA CONSERVATION FUND: $45,000 · EnvironmentRiverside Arts Council: $40,000 · Arts & CultureGIRAFFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION USA: $5,210 · International
Animals$509,900Other$185,816Education$66,200Environment$45,000Arts & Culture$40,000International$5,210

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 budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $308,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetWILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $52,500 over 6y, 6.4% of budgetSAHARA CONSERVATION FUND: $45,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetGREATER LOS ANGELES ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: $45,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetONEFUTURE COACHELLA VALLEY: $43,200 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetRiverside Arts Council: $40,000 over 1y, 9.9% of budgetCARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES: $40,000 over 5y, 30% of budgetCheetah Conservation Fund: $20,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetChicago Zoological Society: $19,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAFRICAN CONSERVATION CENTRE US: $15,000 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetSPECIES360: $10,816 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY: $8,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORK: $5,400 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetGIRAFFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION USA: $5,210 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO: $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.

Zoological Society of…Dallas Zoo Management…Detroit Zoological So…Columbus Zoological P…American Association …The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Zoological Society of San DiegoCA22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Zoological Society of San Diego · Dallas Zoo Management Inc · Detroit Zoological Society · Columbus Zoological Park Association · American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Living Desert The funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Living Desert The. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Giraffe Conservation Foundation Usa: 2% of income from government
  • Willamette University: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report 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 25 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 Living Desert The’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