Skip to content
Nature Defense Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Private foundation

Nature Defense Foundation

OUR MISSION AT SINDISA SANCTUARY IS TO PROVIDE A FOREVER HOME FOR RESCUED FARM ANIMALS AND TO SHARE THEIR JOY OF FREEDOM WITH OUR VISITORS ON 125 ACRES IN HEALDSBURG, CA.

$223k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Animals$510kEnvironment$81kInternational$25kPublic Benefit$25kScience & Tech$10kCivil Rights$5kYouth Development$5kRecreation & Sports$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $200k
$5,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$7.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WONDER DOG RESCUE$150,000
RETURN TO FREEDOM$50,000
ORVILLE SCHELL FARMS PRESERVE$10,000
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH$5,000
BILLION OYSTER PROJECT$5,000
NEW YORK HARBOR SAILING FOUNDATION$1,710
ROLDA - ROMANIAN LEAGUE FOR DEFENSE OF ANIMALS$1,000
ACT BLUE CHARITIES$400
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 (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 90% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ACT BLUE CHARITIES: $400 → 8%ORVILLE SCHELL FARMS PRESERVE: $10k → 8%WONDERDOG RESCUE: $10k → 9%GRID ALTERNATIVES: $5k → 10%SAVE THE REDWOODS: $5k → 10%CALIFORNIA PLANT RESCUE: $5k → 12%RETURN TO FREEDOM: $28k → 14%MIRANDA'S RESCUE: $10k → 18%UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII PLANT EXTINCTION PREVENTION PROGRAM: $5k → 9%RIVERKEEPERS: $10k → 9%WONDER DOG RESCUE: $135k → 11%WONDER DOG RESCUE: $150k → 13%WILDLIFE JUSTICE COMMISSION (FRIENDS OF WILDLIFE JUSTICE LEAGUE): $5k → 17%PEACEFUL DONKEY RESCUE: $5k → 13%HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL: $1k → 14%NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT: $5k → 13%INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY: $5k → 14%GREAT WHALE CONSERVANCY: $5k → 15%ELEPHANT AID INTERNATIONAL: $25k → 23%10 MILLION TREES: $5k → 12%NEW YORK HARBOR SAILING FOUNDATION: $2k → 14%ROLDA - ROMANIAN LEAGUE FOR DEFENSE OF ANIMALS: $1k → 6%SPAWN: $5k → 8%SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER: $5k → 9%CORAL REEF ALLIANCE: $5k → 10%RIVERKEEPERS: $5k → 9%FRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE: $25k → 11%BILLION OYSTER PROJECT: $5k → 17%CARBON 180: $5k → 14%WILD CARE: $5k → 8%ANIMAL LEGAL FUND: $5k → 9%COLUMBIA-GREENE HUMANE SOCIETY: $5k → 11%BILLION OYSTERS PROJECT: $5k → 17%DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE: $5k → 14%WILD CARE: $5k → 8%ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: $5k → 9%BILLION OYSTERS PROJECT: $1k → 17%DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE: $5k → 14%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
MT
NY
MA
IA
NJ
CA
MD
AZ
NC
DC
HI
GA
TX
FL
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

71%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$484k · 7 repeat orgs$194k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
27

Total granted

$484k
$176k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
+39%

Still filing today

100%
52%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
AnimalsEnvironmentEducationScience & TechRecreation & SportsPhilanthropyOther
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

  • RT
    RETURN TO FREEDOM INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $128k · revenue +25%
  • RI
    RIVERKEEPER INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $15k · revenue +29%
  • BO
    BILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $11k · revenue +159%

Funded once

  • EA
    ELEPHANT AID INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2023 · $25k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE
    one grant, 2023 · $25k
  • MR
    MIRANDAS RESCUE INC
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue -40%
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
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
2
World Animal Protection

World animal protection is a global organization working to end factory farming and wildlife exploitation. we expose cruel systems, promote animal-friendly alternatives, and influence policy change. for over 75 years, we've been rewriting…

Animals
3
Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc
Philanthropy
4
Animal Outlook Inc

Animal outlook is a national animal protection organization working to end the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies, including investigations, legal advocacy, corporate and food system reform, and vegan outreach.

Animals
5
Animal Wellness Action

To prevent cruelty to animals, we promote enacting and enforcing good public policies. enacting good laws depends upon electing good lawmakers, and we remind voters which candidates care about and support animal issues.

Human Services
6
Predator Defense

Protecting vital native predators & ending war on wildlife.

Animals
7
Rainforest Trust

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

International
8
American Humane Association

Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…

Animals
9
Animal Protection and Rescue League Inc

Exposing and eliminating animal cruelty.

Animals
10
World Vets

To improve the health & well-being of animals through veterinary aid, response, training, research & local capacity building worldwide. We provide services to companion animals, horses, street dogs, livestock and marine animals including…

Animals
11
Humane World Action Fund

To pass animal protection laws, educate the public, and support humane candidates for office.

Animals
12
Orca Conservancy

Orca conservancy is working on behalf of orcinus orca, the killer whale, and protecting the wild places on which it depends.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildcare; the most unlike its peers is Humane World for Animals International. 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

24 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. 24 of the 39 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)
24/24
Grantees still filing
16/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WONDER DOG RESCUE: $295,400 · AnimalsWONDER DOG RESCUERETURN TO FREEDOM INC: $128,000 · AnimalsRETURN TO FREEDOM INC+12 more: $72,000 · Animals+12 moreELEPHANT AID INTERNATIONAL: $25,000 · OtherELEPHANT AID INTERNATI…FRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE: $25,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC …ORVILLE SCHELL FARMS PRESERVE: $10,000 · OtherORVILLE SCHELL FARMS P…WILDCARE: $10,000 · OtherWILDCARECARBON 180: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherRESILIENT POWER PUERTO RICO: $5,000 · OtherGRID ALTERNATIVES: $5,000 · OtherCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH: $5,000 · OtherFAUNALYTICS: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherSPAWN: $5,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF HAWAII PLANT EXTINCTION PREVENTION PROGRAM: $5,000 · OtherWILDLIFE JUSTICE COMMISSION (FRIENDS OF WILDLIFE JUSTICE LEAGUE): $5,000 · Other10 MILLION TREES: $5,000 · OtherANIMAL LEGAL FUND: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherRIVERKEEPER INC: $15,000 · EnvironmentAINA MOMONA: $5,000 · EnvironmentTHE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE: $5,000 · EnvironmentSonoma Ecology Center: $5,000 · EnvironmentBILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC: $11,040 · EducationInstitute for Responsible Technology: $5,000 · Science & TechNEW YORK HARBOR SAILING FOUNDATION INC: $1,710 · Recreation & SportsACTBLUE CHARITIES INC: $400 · Philanthropy
Animals$495,400Other$135,000Environment$30,000Education$11,040Science & Tech$5,000Recreation & Sports$1,710Philanthropy$400

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 budgetWONDER DOG RESCUE: $295,400 over 3y, 51% of budgetRETURN TO FREEDOM INC: $128,000 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetRIVERKEEPER INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetFootloose Montana: $15,000 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetBILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC: $11,040 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMIRANDAS RESCUE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetWILDCARE: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetDefenders of Wildlife: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGREAT WHALE CONSERVANCY: $5,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAUNALYTICS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPeaceful Valley Donkey Rescue Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAINA MOMONA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMAUI HUMANE SOCIETY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNonhuman Rights Project Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCOLUMBIA-GREENE HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSonoma Ecology Center: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetInstitute for Responsible Technology: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetNEW YORK HARBOR SAILING FOUNDATION INC: $1,710 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetRomanian League in Defense of Animals: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHumane World for Animals International: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetACTBLUE CHARITIES INC: $400 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.

Jpmorgan Chase Founda…The Pfizer Foundation…Vanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodPaypal Charitable Giv…National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…The Bank of America C…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Jpmorgan Chase FoundationNY10.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Nature Defense Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nature Defense Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 Nature Defense Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Nature Defense 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 39 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 Nature Defense’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