Skip to content
Shasta Wildlife Conservation Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Shasta Wildlife Conservation Foundation

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.

$46k
Granted FY2023
17
Grants FY2023
6
States reached
$8k
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, FY2017 to 2023.

Animals$121kEnvironment$90kArts & Culture$18kScience & Tech$10k
02FY2023 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$775k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION$7,500
UNIVESITRY OF CALIFORNIA BOTANICAL GARDEN BERKELEY$5,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY$5,000
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY$2,000
CALIFORNIA TROUT$2,000
SEA OTTER SAVVY$2,000
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FOUNDATION$2,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA THE JEPSON HERBARIUM$2,000
HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY DEPATRMENT OF WILDLIFE$2,000
WELDER WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION$2,000
THE TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST$2,000
CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION$2,000
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND$2,000
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY$2,000
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY & CONSERVATION TRUST$2,000
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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 84% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION: $2k → 6%POLKA DOT FOUNDATION: $3k → 9%POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SERVICE: $2k → 9%UNIVESITRY OF CALIFORNIA BOTANICAL GARDEN BERKELEY: $5k → 10%THE TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST: $2k → 10%SEA OTTER SAVVY: $2k → 12%CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION: $2k → 12%THE HUMBOLDT STATE DEPARTMENT OF WI: $2k → 18%SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY & CONSERVATION TRUST: $2k → 19%WELDER WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $2k → 17%WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: $2k → 14%THE ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION: $8k → 9%NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $2k → 6%THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY: $2k → 8%POLKA DOT FOUNDATION: $2k → 9%POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SCIENCE: $2k → 9%MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY: $5k → 10%CALIFORNIA TROUT: $2k → 10%CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY: $2k → 12%HSU ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION: $2k → 18%SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY: $2k → 19%ROBY BESS WELDER WILDLIFE CONSERVAT: $2k → 17%WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: $2k → 14%THE ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION: $2k → 9%NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $2k → 6%THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY: $2k → 8%POLKA DOT FOUNDATION: $2k → 9%POINT BLUE CONSERVATION SCIENCE: $2k → 9%MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY: $5k → 10%CALIFORNIA TROUT INC: $2k → 10%CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION: $2k → 12%HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY DEPATRMENT OF WILDLIFE: $2k → 18%SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY: $2k → 19%ROBY BESS WELDER WILDLIFE CONSERVAT: $2k → 17%WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: $2k → 14%THE ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION: $2k → 9%NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $2k → 6%THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY: $2k → 8%POLKA DOT FOUNDATION: $2k → 9%MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY: $5k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY: $5k → 10%UC REGENTS BOTANICAL GARDEN: $4k → 10%UC REGENTS BOTANICAL GARDEN: $4k → 10%MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY: $4k → 10%UC REGENTS BOTANICAL GARDEN: $4k → 10%UC REGENTS BOTANICAL GARDEN: $4k → 10%UC REGENTS BOTANICAL GARDEN: $4k → 10%MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY: $3k → 10%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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$214k · 18 repeat orgs$24k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +158% since the first grant, against -9% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2023, 10 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
9

Total granted

$214k
$24k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+158%
-9%

Still filing today

50%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’23
EnvironmentAnimalsOther
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

  • AL
    ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INC
    6× · 2017–2023 · $18k · revenue +29%
  • WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC
    6× · 2017–2023 · $12k · revenue +62%
  • CT
    CALIFORNIA TROUT INC
    6× · 2017–2023 · $12k · revenue +396%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
  • UO
    UNIVESITRY OF CALIFORNIA BOTANICAL GARDEN BERKELEY
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
  • TN
    THE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CALIFORNIA
    one grant, 2023 · $2k
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
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
2
Elkhorn Slough Foundation

The Elkhorn Slough Foundation's mission is to conserve and restore Elkhorn Slough and its watershed, California's largest tidal salt marsh south of San Francisco Bay. Renowned for its extraordinary biodiversity, Elkhorn Slough features a…

Philanthropy
3
Nature Collective

Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…

Environment
4
Trout Unlimited Inc

To conserve, protect, and restore north america's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.

Animals
5
California Wildlife Foundation

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

Animals
6
Wild Salmon Rivers

To conserve functioning salmon/steelhead eco-system at watershed levels, integrate angling activities with basic scientific research, collect raw data, monitor environmental functions, salmon/steelhead population dynamics, public…

Environment
7
Sempervirens Fund

To ensure coast redwood forests in the santa cruz mountains thrive for generations to come. since 1900, sempervirens has protected more than 36,000 acres. learn more about our mission, vision, and strategic plan through 2030 at:…

Environment
8
Swan Valley Connections

Maintain the swan valley's unique natural resources and ensure that a vibrant human community can sustain itself through stewardship, education, economic viability, and conservation on public and private lands.

Environment
9
Fishery Foundation of California

To improve fisheries resources in the state of california.

Animals
10
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
—
11
Environmental Defense Center

The organization protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy and legal action.

Crime & Legal
12
Council for Watershed Health

Council for watershed health advances the health and sustainability of the region's watersheds, rivers, streams, and habitats - in both natural areas and urban neighborhoods - through science-based research, education, and inclusive…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is California Trout Inc; the most unlike its peers is California Waterfowl Association. 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, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 27 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY: $22,000 · OtherMUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGYUC REGENTS BOTANICAL GARDEN: $20,000 · OtherUC REGENTS BOTANICAL GARDENALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INC: $17,500 · OtherALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INCTHE WILDLIFE SOCIETY: $12,000 · OtherTHE WILDLIFE SOCIETYTuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance: $12,000 · OtherTuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers AlliancePOLKA DOT FOUNDATION: $10,500 · OtherPOLKA DOT FOUNDATIONTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CALIFORNI: $10,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY OF CALIFORNITHE JEPSON HERRBARIUM UC BERKELEY: $10,000 · OtherTHE JEPSON HERRBARIUM UC BERKELEYROBY BESS WELDER WILDLIFE CONSERVAT: $10,000 · OtherROBY BESS WELDER WILDLIFE CONSERVATHSU ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION: $6,000 · Other+9 more: $26,000 · Other+9 moreWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $12,000 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND I…CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION: $12,000 · EnvironmentCALIFORNIA WATERFOWL …SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY & CONSERVATION TRUST: $12,000 · EnvironmentSAN JOAQUIN RIVER PAR…California Native Plant Society: $10,000 · EnvironmentCalifornia Native Pla…CALIFORNIA TROUT INC: $12,000 · AnimalsCALIFORNIA TROUT …NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $12,000 · AnimalsNATIONAL WILDLIFE…POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY: $10,000 · AnimalsPOINT REYES BIRD …SEA OTTER SAVVY: $2,000 · AnimalsSEA OTTER SAVVY
Other$156,000Environment$46,000Animals$36,000

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 budgetALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INC: $17,500 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $12,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA TROUT INC: $12,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION: $12,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $12,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetSAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY & CONSERVATION TRUST: $12,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance: $12,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetPOINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY: $10,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCalifornia Native Plant Society: $10,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSEA OTTER SAVVY: $2,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

  • Who funds ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA TROUT INC ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PARKWAY & CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
  • Who funds Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance ↗
  • Who funds POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
  • Who funds California Native Plant Society ↗
  • Who funds SEA OTTER SAVVY ↗

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.

Silicon Valley Commun…Marin Community Found…The San Francisco Fou…Vanguard Charitable E…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…The Blackbaud Giving …National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA13.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Shasta Wildlife Conservation Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Shasta Wildlife Conservation Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s 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
    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 27 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Shasta Wildlife Conservation’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