Skip to content
Panthera Corporation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Panthera Corporation

Panthera's mission is the conservation of the world's 40 wild cat species, many of which are endangered or threatened.

$2.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$155k
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$923kAnimals$690k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $183,726, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,142,009 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,958,283 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $23k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $155k
$23,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$20M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FISHING CAT CONSERVATION ALLIANCE$155,363
CONSERVATION SCIENCE PARTNERS INC$23,000
CHEETAH CONSERVATION FUND$5,363
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 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 86% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%PHOENIX ZOO: $9k → 11%FISHING CAT CONSERVANCY INC: $8k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO: $12k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: $44k → 9%FOUNDANT TECHNOLOGIES: $8k → 10%US FOREST SERVICE: $11k → 10%CONSERVATION SCIENCE PARTNERS INC: $23k → 11%UC SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION: $17k → 13%PEOPLE RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $6k → 14%SOUTH FORK NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: $25k → 7%UNIVERSITY OF OXFORDWILDCRU: $556k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $30k → 28%FISHING CAT CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $155k → 16%YALE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT YALE UNIVERSITY: $18k → 12%HOME RANGE WILDLIFE RESEARCH: $10k → 17%QUINAULT INDIAN NATION: $62k → 18%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION: $8k → 19%ERIN PHILLIPS: $10k → 11%CHEETAH CONSERVATION FUND: $5k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO: $6k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: $40k → 9%SOUTH FORK NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: $25k → 7%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $23k → 28%FISHING CAT CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $150k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: $34k → 9%FISHING CAT CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $150k → 16%FISHING CAT CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $150k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
ID
MT
NY
PA
NJ
CT
CA
CO
WV
VA
AZ
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $3.8M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 6 regions, $1.9M to organizations and $1.9M to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Cat Conservation Grants$1.9M · 50% · 20 people
Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$660k · 18% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: FIELD CONSERVATION

South Asia$606k · 16% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: FIELD CONSERVATION

Sub-Saharan Africa$424k · 11% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: FIELD CONSERVATION

Russia and Neighboring States$184k · 5% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: FIELD CONSERVATION

East Asia and the Pacific$6k · 0% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: FIELD CONSERVATION

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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

53%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$843k · 5 repeat orgs$752k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +35% since the first grant, against +9% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
13

Total granted

$843k
$723k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+9%

Still filing today

60%
54%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k 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
EducationAnimalsEnvironmentScience & TechOther
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

  • FC
    FISHING CAT CONSERVATION ALLIANCE
    4× · 2021–2024 · $605k
  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION
    3× · 2021–2023 · $117k · revenue -20%
  • WC
    Wildlife Conservation Society
    2× · 2020–2021 · $53k · revenue +57%

Funded once

  • AF
    AMERICANS FOR OXFORD INC
    one grant, 2021 · $556k · revenue +21%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $62k
  • US
    UC SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $17k · revenue -17%
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
Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation

we ensure the availability of critical field data that accelerates conservation and climate solutions. we achieve our mission by mobilizing and training outdoor enthusiasts and local communities to collect high-quality scientific data that…

Environment
4
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
5
Marine Biological Laboratory

The Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) is a world-renowned center for biological discovery and training that is notably affiliated with more than 60 Nobel Prize winners. Research is conducted by full-time faculty as well as hundreds of the…

Science & Tech
6
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
7
The Penn State Research Foundation

The Penn State Research Foundations mission is to foster and advance scientific research which includes creating, purchasing, holding and licensing of rights for inventions, designs and intellectual property of The Pennsylvania State…

Education
8
American Museum of Natural History

The museum's mission statement is: "to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe."

Arts & Culture
9
California Wildlife Foundation

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

Animals
10
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
11
Wrld Foundation

WRLD Foundation's mission is to support scientific projects, awareness-raising efforts, educational programs, and other charitable undertakings. Through grant-making and fiscal sponsorships, WRLD Foundation supports nonprofit organizations…

Environment
12
Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey Inc

Conserve wildlife foundation of new jersey works to preserve rare and at-risk wildlife in new jersey through field science, habitat restoration, education, and public engagement.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The University of Montana Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Princeton University Mem Fund Tr Uw Mary S. 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

13 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. 13 of the 21 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
7/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FISHING CAT CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $605,363 · OtherFISHING CAT CONSERVATION ALLIANCEIndividual grant recipient: $62,485 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+6 more: $67,004 · Other+6 moreAMERICANS FOR OXFORD INC: $555,681 · EducationAMERICANS FOR OXFORD INCTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $117,146 · EducationTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION+4 more: $52,915 · Education+4 moreWildlife Conservation Society: $52,500 · AnimalsHome Range Wildlife Research: $10,000 · AnimalsREWILD: $5,500 · AnimalsCheetah Conservation Fund: $5,363 · AnimalsSOUTH FORK NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY: $50,000 · EnvironmentPEOPLE RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $6,000 · EnvironmentConservation Science Partners Inc: $23,000 · Science & Tech
Other$734,852Education$725,742Animals$73,363Environment$56,000Science & Tech$23,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAMERICANS FOR OXFORD INC: $555,681 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $117,146 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $52,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTH FORK NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY: $50,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetConservation Science Partners Inc: $23,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetYale University: $18,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUC SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION: $16,915 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHome Range Wildlife Research: $10,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetPRINCETON UNIVERSITY MEM FUND TR UW MARY S: $10,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION: $8,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPEOPLE RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetREWILD: $5,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCheetah Conservation Fund: $5,363 over 1y, 0.1% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Panthera Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Panthera Corporation. 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%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Yale University: 12% 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
⤢ 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.

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 21 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 Panthera’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