Skip to content
Omaha Zoological Society at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Omaha Zoological Society

The OMAHA ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY's mission is to inspire, educate, and engage people to serve as life-long stewards for animals, their habitats, and their conservation.

$2.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$2.1M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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 2024.

Animals$8.1MEnvironment$23k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,062,737
Median grant
1
States reached
$340M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OMAHA ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATION$2,062,737
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%OMAHA ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATION: $3.3M → 12%CONSERVATION BREEDING SPECIALIST GROUP: $35k → 6%MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM: $10k → 12%CONSERVATION CENTER FOR SPECIES SURVIVAL: $13k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%DIAN FOSSEY GORILLA FUND: $5k → 13%SECORE INTERNATIONAL INC: $13k → 15%ASSOCIATION OF ZOOS & AQUARIUMS: $60k → 8%OMAHA ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATION: $2.4M → 12%MINNESOTA ZOO FOUNDATION: $10k → 6%OMAHA ZOOLOGICAL FOUNDATION: $2.1M → 12%OMAHA ZOO FOUNDATION: $260k → 12%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
Rainforest Trust

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

International
2
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
3
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
4
Zoo Outreach Organisation

Wildlife conservation, research and education.

Environment
5
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
6
Noble Gorilla Reserve Foundation
—
7
Marine Megafauna Foundation

Save threatened marine life using pioneering research, education, and sustainable conservation solutions

International
8
Endangered Species International

Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.

Animals
9
Zambia Carnivore Programme

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

Animals
10
Red River Zoological Society

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

Animals
11
Denver Zoological Foundation

Inspiring communities to save wildlife for future generations.

Animals
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Minnesota Zoo Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. 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

9 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OMAHA ZOO FOUNDATION: $7,992,558 · AnimalsOMAHA ZOO FOUNDATION+6 more: $137,500 · AnimalsSECORE INTERNATIONAL INC: $12,500 · EnvironmentDian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc: $5,297 · Other
Animals$8,130,058Environment$12,500Other$5,297

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetOMAHA ZOO FOUNDATION: $7,992,558 over 4y, 13% of budgetAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INC: $60,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetGLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORK: $35,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetCONSERVATION CENTERS FOR SPECIES SURVIVAL: $12,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSECORE INTERNATIONAL INC: $12,500 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetMONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMINNESOTA ZOO FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

Dallas Zoo Management…Columbus Zoological P…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Dallas Zoo Management IncTX13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Dallas Zoo Management Inc · Columbus Zoological Park Association · 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 Omaha Zoological Society funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Omaha Zoological Society. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    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 9 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Omaha Zoological Society’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