· 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $350k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK | $100,000 |
| AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA | $100,000 |
| BIG LIFE FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| NATURAL STATE LTD | $50,000 |
| ONLY ONE INC | $50,000 |
| UNDERCURRENT | $20,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your 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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 43% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Beyond the US — 11% of all-years giving ($300k)
1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
9 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- CFCARE FOR WILD2× · 2021–2022 · $500k · revenue +96% · 44% of their budget
- APAFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA4× · 2021–2024 · $407k · revenue +189%
- WCWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC4× · 2021–2024 · $380k · revenue +95%
Funded once
- CYCHAPEL & YORK FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $250k
- CFCARE FOR WILD USAone grant, 2023 · $250k
- UIUNDERCURRENT INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +30%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
To safeguard large carnivores, their prey, and habitat in zambia through applied research, conservation, and education.
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.
Protect wildlife and ecosystems through research, evidence-based evaluation, capacity development and advocacy.
The corporation is organized for the charitable, educational and scientific purpose of supporting biological research, protection of wildlife and habitat management in amozonian coutries.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is African Parks Foundation of America and 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.
10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, 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; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds CARE FOR WILD ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds ONLY ONE INC ↗
- Who funds BIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA ↗
- Who funds NATURAL STATE LTD ↗
- Who funds UNDERCURRENT INC ↗
- Who funds UNDERCURRENT INC ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN HOPE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Preservation of At-Risk Wildlife Paw Fou funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.