Skip to content
Red Lion Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Red Lion Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$21k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Environment$12kAnimals$10kHealth$9kCrime & Legal$7kArts & Culture$4kEmployment$2kFood & Nutrition$865Other$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$4,280
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE NATURE CONNECTION$4,280
HAWTHORNE CANCER FOUNDATION$4,280
COMMUNITY FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE$4,280
BEATHAVEN$4,280
ELAINE CONNORS' WILDLIFE RESCUE$4,280
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 (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 80% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%BEATHAVEN: $4k → 8%ZEBS WISHES: $2k → 8%KAREN BEASLEY SEA TURTLE RESCUE: $733 → 21%OUR LAUGHTER IN THE RAIN: $1k → 5%HAWTHORNE CANCER FOUNDATION: $4k → 7%BROOK HILL FARM: $1k → 8%NEXT MOVE PROGRAM: $2k → 22%ELAINE CONNORS' WILDLIFE RESCUE: $4k → 9%SQUAM LAKES ASSOCIATION: $1k → 10%BERNER INC: $600 → 9%THE NATURE CONNECTION: $4k → 8%HAWTHORNE CANCER FOUNDATION: $3k → 7%BROOK HILL FARM: $500 → 8%FEED MORE: $865 → 22%ELAINE CONNORS' WILDLIFE RESCUE: $2k → 9%COMMUNITY FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: $4k → 8%HAWTHORNE CANCER FOUNDATION: $2k → 7%BROOK HILL FARM: $100 → 8%ELAINE CONNORS' WILDLIFE RESCUE: $800 → 9%THE NATURE CONNECTION: $3k → 8%THE NATURE CONNECTION: $2k → 8%COMMUNITY FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: $2k → 8%THE NATURE CONNECTION: $2k → 8%COMMUNITIES FOR RESTORATIVE: $500 → 8%COMMUNITIES FOR RESTORATIVE: $100 → 8%NEWHOUSE WILDLIFE RESCUE: $500 → 8%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

73%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$35k · 5 repeat orgs$13k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
8

Total granted

$35k
$9k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+56%

Still filing today

80%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentHealthCrime & LegalFood & NutritionOther
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

  • THE NATURE CONNECTION INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $11k · revenue +13%
  • HC
    HAWTHORNE CANCER FOUNDATION
    3× · 2023–2025 · $8k · revenue +16%
  • CF
    COMMUNITIES FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE INC
    4× · 2019–2025 · $7k · revenue +29%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
  • NM
    NEXT MOVE PROGRAM
    one grant, 2022 · $2k · revenue -79%
  • SL
    SQUAM LAKES ASSOCIATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $1k · revenue +56%
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
Tidewater Rehabilitation & Environmental Education

Tidewater Rehabilitation and Environmental Education's purpose is to provide medical, rehabilitative, and foster care to native wildlife species and to provide education to the public in matters pertaining to native wildlife.

Animals
2
Wet Mountain Wildlife Rehabilitatio
—
3
Maine Wildlife Rehabilitation

To support native wildlife, population research, and environmental education through several specific aims: Provide rehabilitation and high quality medical care to individual animals adversely impacted by human development and changing…

Animals
4
New Hampshire Turtle Rescue Inc

Our primary exempt purpose is animal welfare and medical care. We are licensed wildlife rehabilitators focused on caring for sick and injured turtle species native to New Hampshire and returning them to the wild. We provide emergency…

Animals
5
Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Inc

Dedicated to the rescue, rehabilitation, and release of orphaned, injured and displaced wildlife. wildlife rescue rescues and cares for all wildlife, including native and nonnative species believing all animals are deserving of care,…

Animals
6
Wild Souls Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation
Animals
7
Mountain Tails Wildlife Rehab

Wildlife rehabitation

Animals
8
Treehouse Wildlife Center Inc

Rehabilitation of wildlife. injured and abused wildlife are taken into the facility to nurse them back to their former condition. these animals are then acclamated back into their surroundings if their condition warrants the change.

Animals
9
Blue Mountain Wildlife

Blue Mountain Wildlife's mission is to provide the necessary treatment and care to orphaned, injured or sick wildlife, primarily birds of prey, to enable them to return to their natural habitat, and to offer educational programs which…

—
10
Southwest Virginia Wildlife Center of Roanoke Inc

SWVA Wildlife Center's mission is to conserve Virginia's wildlife through rehabilitation and release while teaching care and respect of native species. We advocate for the protection of wildlife and wild places to ensure these magnificent…

Animals
11
Blue Waters Dog Rescue

We are a non-profit organization dedicated to helping animals in need. Our focus is on rescuing and rehabilitating animals. We provide the full curriculum of care for each dog rescued, This includes: shelter, food, spaying & neutering,…

Animals
12
Beachwood Center for Wellbeing

In 2024, beachwood integrative equine therapy continued its mission to make the healing power of horses accessible to individuals from all walks of life. through our trauma-informed, relationship-based therapeutic model, we helped more…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Newhouse Wildlife Rescue Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Next Move Program. 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE NATURE CONNECTION INC: $10,680 · OtherTHE NATURE CONNECTION INCHAWTHORNE CANCER FOUNDATION: $8,380 · OtherHAWTHORNE CANCER FOUNDATIONELAINE CONNORS' WILDLIFE RESCUE: $6,780 · OtherELAINE CONNORS' WILDLIFE RESCUEBEATHAVEN: $4,280 · OtherBEATHAVENIndividual grant recipient: $2,198 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNEXT MOVE PROGRAM: $1,700 · Other+1 more: $600 · OtherCOMMUNITIES FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE INC: $6,780 · Crime & LegalCOMMUNITIES FOR …BROOK HILL RETIREMENT CENTER FOR HORSES INC: $2,000 · AnimalsKAREN BEASLEY SEA TURTLE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTER: $733 · AnimalsNEWHOUSE WILDLIFE RESCUE CORPORATION: $500 · AnimalsSQUAM LAKES ASSOCIATION: $1,000 · EnvironmentOUR LAUGHTER IN THE RAIN INC: $1,000 · HealthFEED MORE INC: $865 · Food & Nutrition
Other$34,618Crime & Legal$6,780Animals$3,233Environment$1,000Health$1,000Food & Nutrition$865

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 budgetTHE NATURE CONNECTION INC: $10,680 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetHAWTHORNE CANCER FOUNDATION: $8,380 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetCOMMUNITIES FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE INC: $6,780 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetBROOK HILL RETIREMENT CENTER FOR HORSES INC: $2,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetNEXT MOVE PROGRAM: $1,700 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSQUAM LAKES ASSOCIATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFEED MORE INC: $865 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKAREN BEASLEY SEA TURTLE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTER: $733 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

The Pfizer Foundation…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Pfizer Foundation IncNY9.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Red Lion Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Red Lion Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →median 8%
  • Communities for Restorative Justice Inc: 8% of income from government
  • The Nature Connection Inc: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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 · 0–30%
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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Red Lion’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