Skip to content

Massachusetts · Private foundation

Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$370k
Granted FY2024(still arriving)
6
Grants FY2024
8
Organizations funded FY2023
50%
First-time grantees FY2023
Read the full brief
Median grant, FY2024
$50,000
Largest grant, FY2024
$100,000
Organizations funded a year
1 to 8
FY2019 to FY2023
States reached, FY2024
4
Total assets, FY2024
$6.2M
Applications
Preselected organizations only
Per its most recent filing; check its own site

How open it is to new grantees

In FY2023, 50% of the organizations Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou funded were first-time grantees, receiving 62% of its grant dollars.

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $545k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23
AnimalsEnvironmentRecreation & SportsArts & CultureOther
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.
The numbers by year
Fiscal yearOrganizations fundedTo those organizationsFirst-time grantees
FY2024still arriving6$370k0%
FY20238$885k50%
FY20227$837k14%
FY20217$720k100%
FY20202$4k50%
FY20191$1kn/a
100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Animals$1.7MEnvironment$625kRecreation & Sports$407kArts & Culture$80k

Top grantees

Largest recipients by total granted, FY2019 to FY2024, and the share of each one’s budget the grants supplied at peak.

GranteeTotal grantedYearsShare of their budget
Care for Wild$500,000244%
African Parks Foundation of America$407,25041%
Wildlife Conservation Network Inc$380,00040%
Only One Inc$350,00041%
Big Life Foundation USA$200,00041%
Natural State Ltd$75,00021%
Undercurrent Inc$60,0002n/a
African Hope Fund Inc$20,00017%
Undercurrent Inc$20,00014%
African Wildlife Foundation Inc$3,50020%

Plus 4 recipients with no EIN on record ($801k), not named here.

Where it is load-bearing

Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou supplied at least a quarter of the budget for 1 of its grantees at some point. The chart plots its 9 largest grantees; load-bearing ones sit top left.

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCare for Wild: $500,000 over 2y, 44% of budgetAfrican Parks Foundation of America: $407,250 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetWildlife Conservation Network Inc: $380,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetOnly One Inc: $350,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetBig Life Foundation USA: $200,000 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetNatural State Ltd: $75,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetAfrican Hope Fund Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetUndercurrent Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetAfrican Wildlife Foundation Inc: $3,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budget

Tap a dot to name the grantee.

How this is measured
Share of budget is the funder’s grant in a year over the grantee’s total revenue that year, at its highest across the years we hold; revenue is from all sources. Only grantees confirmed against their own filings, whose grants do not exceed their revenue, are plotted: the largest 9.

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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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.

Compare Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou with peer funders

About Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou

How much does Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou give?
Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou reported 6 grants totaling $370,000 in its FY2024 IRS filing. It funded between 1 and 8 organizations a year over FY2019 to FY2023.
What does Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou fund?
By grant dollars over FY2019 to FY2024, its largest causes are Animals (61%), Environment (22%), Recreation & Sports (14%).
Who are Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou's largest grantees?
By total granted over FY2019 to FY2024: Care for Wild ($500k), African Parks Foundation of America ($407k), Wildlife Conservation Network Inc ($380k).
Does Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou fund new organizations?
In FY2023, 50% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.
Does Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou accept unsolicited applications?
Its most recent filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and does not take unsolicited requests. Check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Which funders back the same organizations as Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou?
Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc, Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, Amazonsmile Foundation.
Where is Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou based?
Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou is based in MA.

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 14 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 Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou’s filings →

More from the funding graph