Skip to content
M & Sa Zollo Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

M & Sa Zollo 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.

$114k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$17k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $91k
$11,391
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Blue Kats Mens Club$17,087
Kingston Self-Help Center Inc DBA Peopl$14,239
Family of Woodstock Inc$14,239
Pregnancy Support Center of Ulster Count$11,391
The Walter Hoving Home Inc$11,391
Circle of Friends for the Dying Inc$11,391
Center for Creative Education$11,391
Boys & Girls Club of Ulster County Inc$5,696
Hudson City School District Community En$5,696
Esopus Creek Conservancy Inc$5,696
Catskill Animal Sanctuary Current and R$2,848
Saugerties Animal Welfare Fund$2,848
02The need
02

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:

Its human-services grants (FY25–25, $17k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Blue Kats Mens Club: $17k → 16%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.
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.
03Its 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
Sullivan County Humane Society

To improve the qualiity of life for animals and putting an end to animal overpopulation abandonment and neglect

Animals
2
Pregnancy Resource Center of the Valleys

Crisis pregnancy services

Health
3
Humane Society of Greene County

Improve animal welfare

Animals
4
Hudson Valley Day Care Center Inc

To operate a full-day day care center program and after- school

Human Services
5
Friends of Bergen County Animal Shelter T/a Focas

Prevention of cruelty to animals

Animals
6
Hudson Valley Animal Rescue and Sanctuary

Hudson valley animal rescue and sanctuary is a facility where local citizens can bring injured. feral, or unwanted animals for rehabilitation or placement. in addition we offer medical services to the animals in our care. we are committed…

Animals
7
Ny New Hope Pregnancy Resource Center
—
8
Humane Society of Genesee County

To provide services to homeless animals

Animals
9
Fostering Hope Ny Inc
Human Services
10
Camp-Get-a-Way Western Region New York State Inc

To provide family recreational activities for children with mental health disabilities

Health
11
Chazy After School Program

Registered child care services

—
12
Youth Directions & Alternatives Community and Youth Agency Inc

The agency provides counseling services for youth and family in the town of huntington, new york.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Walter Hoving Home Inc Dba Hoving Home; the most unlike its peers is Center for Creative Education Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the 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 12 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
3/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FAMILY OF WOODSTOCK INC: $14,239 · HealthFAMILY OF WOODSTOCK INCWALTER HOVING HOME INC DBA HOVING HOME: $11,391 · HealthWALTER HOVING HOME INC DBA HOVING HO…CIRCLE OF FRIENDS FOR THE DYING INC: $11,391 · HealthCIRCLE OF FRIENDS FOR THE DYING INCKingston Self-Help Center Inc DBA Peopl: $14,239 · OtherKingston Self-Help Center In…PREGNANCY SUPPORT CENTER OF ULSTER COUNTY: $11,391 · OtherPREGNANCY SUPPORT CENTER OF …Catskill Animal Sanctuary Current and R: $2,848 · OtherCatskill Animal Sanctuary Cu…BLUE KATS MEN'S CLUB INC: $17,087 · Human ServicesBLUE KATS MEN'S C…CENTER FOR CREATIVE EDUCATION INC: $11,391 · EducationCENTER FOR CREATI…HUDSON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMUNITY ENDOWMENT FUND INC: $5,696 · EducationHUDSON CITY SCHOO…BOY'S AND GIRL'S CLUB OF ULSTER COUNTY INC: $5,696 · Youth DevelopmentESOPUS CREEK CONSERVANCY INC: $5,696 · EnvironmentSAUGERTIES ANIMAL WELFARE FUND: $2,848 · Animals
Health$37,021Other$28,478Human Services$17,087Education$17,087Youth Development$5,696Environment$5,696Animals$2,848

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBLUE KATS MEN'S CLUB INC: $17,087 over 1y, 32% of budgetFAMILY OF WOODSTOCK INC: $14,239 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWALTER HOVING HOME INC DBA HOVING HOME: $11,391 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCIRCLE OF FRIENDS FOR THE DYING INC: $11,391 over 1y, 16% of budgetPREGNANCY SUPPORT CENTER OF ULSTER COUNTY: $11,391 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetESOPUS CREEK CONSERVANCY INC: $5,696 over 1y, 12% 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.

Kvistad FoundationUlster Savings Charit…Novo FoundationFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Kvistad FoundationNY13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Kvistad Foundation · Ulster Savings Charitable Foundation · Novo Foundation · 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 M & Sa Zollo Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from M & Sa Zollo Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 12 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 M & Sa Zollo’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