Skip to content
Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou at a glance

· 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 FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$100k
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Animals$1.7MEnvironment$625kRecreation & Sports$407kArts & Culture$80k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $350k
$50,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$6.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA$100,000
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK$100,000
ONLY ONE INC$50,000
BIG LIFE FOUNDATION$50,000
NATURAL STATE LTD$50,000
UNDERCURRENT$20,000
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.

US giving: 89% of grant dollars ($2.5M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 11% that went abroad ($300k) is mapped below.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 43% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%NATURAL STATE LTD: $50k → 10%UNDERCURRENT: $20k → 8%CARE FOR WILD USA: $250k → 10%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $100k → 10%AFRICAN HOPE FUND: $20k → 12%ONLY ONE INC: $100k → 17%UNDERCURRENT: $40k → 20%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $3k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $50k → 9%NATURAL STATE LTD: $25k → 10%CARE FOR WILD: $250k → 10%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $100k → 10%ONLY ONE INC: $50k → 17%UNDERCURRENT: $20k → 20%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $1k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $50k → 9%CARE FOR WILD: $250k → 10%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $90k → 10%CHAPEL & YORK FOUNDATION: $250k → 17%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $50k → 9%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $90k → 10%BLUE SPHERE FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $50k → 9%BLUE SPHERE FOUNDATION: $100k → 17%AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $107k → 17%AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $100k → 17%AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $100k → 17%AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $100k → 17%VETERANS EMPOWERED TO PROTECT AFRICAN WILDLIFE: $1k → 17%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.

Beyond the US: 11% of all-years giving ($300k)

1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore
United Kingdom$300k · 2 grants
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 9 repeat orgs$541k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +95% since the first grant, against +30% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
5

Total granted

$2.3M
$541k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+95%
+30%

Still filing today

78%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
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.

Backed again, and grew

  • CF
    CARE FOR WILD
    2× · 2021–2022 · $500k · revenue +96% · 44% of their budget
  • AP
    AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA
    4× · 2021–2024 · $407k · revenue +189%
  • WC
    WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $380k · revenue +95%

Funded once

  • CY
    CHAPEL & YORK FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $250k
  • CF
    CARE FOR WILD USA
    one grant, 2023 · $250k
  • AH
    AFRICAN HOPE FUND INC
    one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue -1%
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
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
3
Zambia Carnivore Programme

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

Animals
4
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
5
International Primate Protection League

Protecting the world's remaining primates by monitoring and exposing illegal trade, supporting a worldwide network of overseas sanctuaries and ngo's, publicising the plight of abused primates, and operating a sanctuary for resued gibbons.

Animals
6
Gorongosa Project Inc
Civil Rights
7
Born Free Foundation
—
8
Wildlife Impact

Protect wildlife and ecosystems through research, evidence-based evaluation, capacity development and advocacy.

Animals
9
Intertribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council
—
10
Mpala Wildlife Foundation Inc
—
11
Manu

The corporation is organized for the charitable, educational and scientific purpose of supporting biological research, protection of wildlife and habitat management in amozonian coutries.

Environment
12
Mozparks Initiative Inc

Mozparks initiativ, inc has been established to address and defeat the onslaught on elephant, rhino, and other species of wildlife and the habitat of wildlife in mozambique. mozparks partners with non-governmental organizations, local…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is African Parks Foundation of America; the most unlike its peers is Undercurrent Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 14 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CARE FOR WILD: $500,000 · AnimalsCARE FOR WILDWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $380,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INCBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $200,000 · AnimalsBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA+1 more: $3,500 · AnimalsIndividual grant recipient: $300,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCHAPEL & YORK FOUNDATION: $250,000 · OtherCHAPEL & YORK FOUNDATIONCARE FOR WILD USA: $250,000 · OtherCARE FOR WILD USAUNDERCURRENT INC: $60,000 · OtherUNDERCURRENT INC+1 more: $1,000 · OtherONLY ONE INC: $350,000 · EnvironmentONLY ONE INCNATURAL STATE LTD: $75,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL STATE LTDAFRICAN HOPE FUND INC: $20,000 · EnvironmentAFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $407,250 · Recreation & SportsAFRICAN PARKS FO…UNDERCURRENT INC: $20,000 · Arts & Culture
Animals$1,083,500Other$861,000Environment$445,000Recreation & Sports$407,250Arts & Culture$20,000

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 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
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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 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

    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