Skip to content
Melling Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Melling Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$137k
Granted FY2024still arriving
20
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$20k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Environment$265kAnimals$59kHealth$50kFood & Nutrition$24kPublic Benefit$20kInternational$19kHousing & Shelter$12kCivil Rights$1k
02FY2024 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k14 grants · $37k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $100k
$4,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$992k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL$20,000
PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT$20,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND$20,000
OCEAN CONSERVANCY$20,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA$10,000
WILDLIFE REHABILITAION CENTER OF NORTHERN UTAH$10,000
MADRE$4,000
UTAH FOOD BANK$4,000
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK$4,000
AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION$4,000
BIG LIFE FOUNDATION$4,000
FEEDING AMERICA$3,000
SAGELAND COLLABORATIVE (WILD UTAH PROJECT)$2,500
HAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL$2,000
SAVE OUR CANYONS$2,000
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 73% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $20k → 17%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $4k → 14%UTAH FOOD BANK: $6k → 8%WILDLIFE REHABILITAION CENTER OF NORTHERN UTAH: $10k → 9%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $4k → 14%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $4k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $15k → 17%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $4k → 14%UTAH FOOD BANK: $4k → 8%WILDLIFE REHABILITAION CENTER OF NORTHERN UTAH: $10k → 9%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $4k → 14%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $4k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $10k → 17%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $4k → 14%FEEDING AMERICA: $3k → 8%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $4k → 14%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $4k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $10k → 17%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $4k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $4k → 14%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $4k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $5k → 17%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $4k → 14%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $4k → 10%MADRE: $4k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $20k → 14%MADRE: $4k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $15k → 14%MADRE: $4k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $10k → 14%MADRE: $4k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $10k → 14%MADRE: $3k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $10k → 14%OCEAN CONSERVANCY: $20k → 14%SAGELAND COLLABORATIVE (WILD UTAH PROJECT): $3k → 8%OCEAN CONSERVANCY: $15k → 14%SAGELAND COLLABORATIVE (WILD UTAH PROJECT): $3k → 8%PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $20k → 14%OCEAN CONSERVANCY: $5k → 14%GREEN AMERICA: $3k → 14%OCEAN CONSERVANCY: $5k → 14%GREEN AMERICA: $3k → 14%OCEAN CONSERVANCY: $5k → 14%GREEN AMERICA: $3k → 14%UTAH OPEN LANDS: $5k → 8%UTAH OPEN LANDS: $5k → 8%UTAH OPEN LANDS: $5k → 8%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.
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 58% of Melling Family Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 25% of the giving stays in UT; by stated purpose, 15%.

Melling Family Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 4.5% 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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$410k · 19 repeat orgs$38k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +49% since the first grant, against +40% for those funded once.

19 repeat relationships: 17 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
6

Total granted

$410k
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
+40%

Still filing today

89%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
AnimalsEnvironmentHealthInternationalFood & NutritionHuman ServicesOther
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

  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED
    5× · 2020–2024 · $65k · revenue +121%
  • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $60k · revenue +26%
  • OC
    OCEAN CONSERVANCY
    5× · 2020–2024 · $50k · revenue +45%

Funded once

  • Feeding Americagraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue +40%
  • FH
    FORGOTTEN HARVEST (DETROIT MI)
    one grant, 2021 · $2k
  • SC
    Sageland Collaborativegraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $2k · revenue +127%
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
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
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
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
4
Rainforest Foundation Inc

The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.

Environment
5
Defenders of Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

Animals
6
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
7
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
8
The Nature Conservancy

The mission of the nature conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.

—
9
Project Drawdown

Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…

Education
10
Montana Wildlife Federation

The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.

Animals
11
Wild Landscapes Inc

Wild landscapes, inc. (wli) is dedicated to conserving large and connected landscapes globally significant to wildlife and crucial to local communities. our environmental conservation strategy is to empower communities, conservationists,…

Animals
12
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

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 The Road Home. 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

23 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. 23 of the 28 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)
23/23
Grantees still filing
20/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $65,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $60,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INCOCEAN CONSERVANCY: $50,000 · EnvironmentOCEAN CONSERVANCYUTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $18,500 · EnvironmentUTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC+1 more: $2,000 · EnvironmentWILDLIFE REHABILITATION CENTER OF NORTHERN UTAH: $25,500 · AnimalsWILDLIFE REHABILITATIO…WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $20,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION …BIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $16,000 · AnimalsBIG LIFE FOUNDATION US…GREEN AMERICA: $9,000 · AnimalsGREEN AMERICAHAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL INC: $8,000 · AnimalsHAWKWATCH INTERNATIONA…COEXISTENCE STORY INC: $5,000 · AnimalsCOEXISTENCE STORY INCAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC: $4,000 · Animals+1 more: $3,000 · AnimalsIndividual grant recipient: $16,000 · OtherIndividual gra…UTAH FOOD BANK: $14,000 · OtherUTAH FOOD BANKSAGELAND COLLABORATIVE (WILD UTAH PROJECT): $10,000 · OtherSAGELAND COLLA…CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR: $10,000 · OtherCITIZENS COMMI…FEEDING AMERICA: $3,000 · OtherFEEDING AMERIC…FORGOTTEN HARVEST (DETROIT MI): $2,000 · Other+1 more: $1,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $42,000 · HealthPLANNED PARE…Wasatch Homeless Health Care: $7,500 · HealthWasatch Home…PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $20,000 · Civil RightsMADRE INC: $19,000 · InternationalGLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN INC: $1,000 · InternationalTHE ROAD HOME: $11,500 · Human ServicesFeeding America: $3,000 · Food & NutritionFOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIES: $2,000 · Food & Nutrition
Environment$195,500Animals$90,500Other$56,000Health$49,500Civil Rights$20,000International$20,000Human Services$11,500Food & Nutrition$5,000

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 budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $65,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $60,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetOCEAN CONSERVANCY: $50,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $42,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetWILDLIFE REHABILITATION CENTER OF NORTHERN UTAH: $25,500 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $20,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetPROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMADRE INC: $19,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetUTAH OPEN LANDS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $18,500 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $16,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetUTAH FOOD BANK: $14,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ROAD HOME: $11,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCITIZENS COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR: $10,000 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetGREEN AMERICA: $9,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHAWKWATCH INTERNATIONAL INC: $8,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetWasatch Homeless Health Care: $7,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCOEXISTENCE STORY INC: $5,000 over 5y, 2.4% of budgetAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF TRACY AVIARY: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFeeding America: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSageland Collaborative: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIES: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGLOBAL FUND FOR WOMEN INC: $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.

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 Community Foundat…The Fanwood FoundationLawrence & Janet Dee …The Walbridge FundDavid Kelby Johnson M…PatagoniaorgSalt Lake County Fish…Ballard Miller Founda…Palladium FoundationWillard L Eccles Char…George S and Dolores …Dominion Energy Chari…
The Community Foundation of UtahUT19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Community Foundation of Utah · The Fanwood Foundation · Lawrence & Janet Dee Foundation · The Walbridge Fund · David Kelby Johnson Memorial Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Salt Lake County Fish and Game Asso · Ballard Miller Foundation · Palladium Foundation · Willard L Eccles Charitable Foundation · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · Dominion Energy Charitable 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 Melling Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Melling Family 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%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 28 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Melling Family’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