Skip to content
The Hubbard Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Hubbard Family Foundation

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.

$1.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.5M
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Animals$2.2MHealth$73kArts & Culture$55kReligion$25kCrime & Legal$20kEducation$20kPublic Safety & Disaster$12kRecreation & Sports$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $199k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.5M
$1,525,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OMAHA'S HENRY DOORLY ZOO AND AQUARIUM$1,525,000
NEBRASKA WILDLIFE REHAB INC$199,028
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HERITAGE HOUSE MUSEUM: $5k → 6%NEBRASKA WILDLIFE REHAB INC: $250k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION: $20k → 13%JOHN DALY MAJOR ED FOUNDATION INC: $2k → 9%AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION: $3k → 17%AVOCA VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $12k → 6%NEBRASKA WILDLIFE REHAB INC: $199k → 12%HOPE FOR THE POOR: $25k → 13%LOUISVILLE WRESTLING CLUB: $10k → 6%MAKE A WISH NEBRASKA: $30k → 12%PLATTSMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT FOUNDATION: $20k → 6%MAKE A WISH NEBRASKA: $20k → 12%MAKE A WISH NEBRASKA: $20k → 12%FOR ELEPHANTS INC: $89k → 12%FOR ELEPHANTS INC: $45k → 12%FOR ELEPHANTS INC: $35k → 12%FOR ELEPHANTS INC: $30k → 12%PATRIOTIC PRODUCTIONS: $50k → 12%OMAHA'S HENRY DOORLY ZOO AND AQUARIUM: $1.5M → 12%OMAHA'S HENRY DOORLY ZOO AND AQUARIUM: $10k → 12%OMAHA'S HENRY DOORLY ZOO AND AQUARIUM: $3k → 12%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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 4 repeat orgs$146k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
9

Total granted

$2.3M
$146k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
+36%

Still filing today

100%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsArts & CultureEducationHealthPublic BenefitReligionOther
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

  • OZ
    OMAHA ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY
    3× · 2022–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +14%
  • FE
    FOR ELEPHANTS INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $199k · revenue +66% · 65% of their budget
  • MF
    MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF NEBRASKA INC
    3× · 2021–2024 · $70k · revenue +18%

Funded once

  • PP
    PATRIOTIC PRODUCTIONS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue +110%
  • HO
    HOPE OF THE POOR INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +122%
  • PP
    PLATTSMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $20k
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
The Nebraska Land Trust Inc

To foster the protection of agricultural, historical and natural resources on land in nebraska through education, partnering and permanent conservation.

Environment
2
Omaha Zoo Foundation

Founded in 1984, the omaha zoo foundation supports the mission, research and programs benefitting omaha's henry doorly zoo and aquarium. to ensure a growing, vibrant zoo for future generations, it is our priority to build a solid…

Animals
3
Nebraska Humane Society

The nebraska humane society protects, saves and enriches the lives of animals in the communities we serve. we do this by providing a broad spectrum of services for the greater omaha area. program offerings include adoption, animal foster…

Animals
4
Nebraska Organ Recovery System

We transform lives through organ and tissue donation.

Health
5
Amboseli Trust for Elephants

Research and preservation of african elephants

Animals
6
Nebraska Credit Union League Inc

To promote credit unions in nebraska

—
7
Humane Pennsylvania Foundation

To encourage and motivate the making of gifts and donations by deed, will, or otherwise, for the advancement, promotion, extension, and maintenance of the various causes and objectives fostered by the humane pennsylvania.

Animals
8
Hawaiian Humane Society

The hawaiian humane society works to improve the welfare of animals through animal care, education, legislation, and prevention on the island of oahu. its mission is to promote the human-animal bond and the humane treatment of all animals.

Animals
9
Naples Zoo Inc

Naples zoo is accredited by the american zoo & aquarium association (aza) and has numerous animal exhibits placed on its 45-acre site. (continued on schedule o)each exhibit is unique and designed to simulate typical conditions for the…

Animals
10
Native Plant Trust Inc

The organization's mission is to conserve and promote new england's native plants to ensure healthy, biologically diverse landscapes.

Environment
11
Nashville Zoo Inc

In fulfillment of our mission to inspire a culture of understanding and discovery of our natural world through conservation, innovation and leadership, our goal is to build a first class zoo for middle tennessee and to develop a facility…

Animals
12
The Humane Society for Seattleking County

Seattle humane promotes the human-animal bond by saving and serving pets in need, regardless of age, ability, circumstance or geography.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of Nebraska Inc; the most unlike its peers is Patriotic Productions 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

9 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. 9 of the 13 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OMAHA ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $1,538,115 · AnimalsOMAHA ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETYNEBRASKA WILDLIFE REHAB INC: $449,028 · AnimalsNEBRASKA WILDLIFE REHAB INCFOR ELEPHANTS INC: $198,755 · OtherFOR ELEPHANTS …MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF NEBRASKA INC: $70,000 · OtherMAKE-A-WISH FO…PLATTSMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherPLATTSMOUTH PO…AVOCA VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $12,000 · Other+2 more: $14,595 · OtherPATRIOTIC PRODUCTIONS INC: $50,000 · Arts & CultureHOPE OF THE POOR INC: $25,000 · ReligionUNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION: $20,000 · EducationAMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION: $2,500 · HealthHEART OF A LION: $2,000 · Public Benefit
Animals$1,987,143Other$315,350Arts & Culture$50,000Religion$25,000Education$20,000Health$2,500Public Benefit$2,000

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 budgetOMAHA ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $1,538,115 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNEBRASKA WILDLIFE REHAB INC: $449,028 over 2y, 17% of budgetFOR ELEPHANTS INC: $198,755 over 4y, 65% of budgetMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF NEBRASKA INC: $70,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetPATRIOTIC PRODUCTIONS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetHOPE OF THE POOR INC: $25,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHEART OF A LION: $2,000 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 The Hubbard Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Hubbard Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%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 13 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 Hubbard Family’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