· Private foundation
The Jodar Family 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k11 grants · $241k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Bold Visions Conservation | $40,550 |
| Individual grant recipient | $35,000 |
| Yellowstone Ecological Research Cen | $25,000 |
| Captain Paul Watson Foundation | $25,000 |
| CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY | $25,000 |
| Wildearth Guardians | $25,000 |
| PETA | $25,000 |
| SHARK | $10,000 |
| Kootenai Shelter | $10,000 |
| FOOTLOOSE MONTANA | $10,000 |
| Nature Rising | $10,000 |
| Raison Detre | $5,000 |
| COMMITTEE TO ABOLISH SPORTS HUNT | $5,000 |
| HEART OF THE VALLEY ANIMAL SHELTER | $5,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 92% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +71% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
27 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
- PFPEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC8× · 2017–2024 · $195k · revenue +147%
- FMFootloose Montana7× · 2017–2024 · $176k · revenue +626% · 40% of their budget
- SSSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY6× · 2017–2022 · $150k · revenue +128%
Funded once
- TIThe Interceptone grant, 2022 · $25k
- WOWOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INCone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -40%
- AUAnimals United Movementone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue -25%
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.
Protecting vital native predators & ending war on wildlife.
To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.
Animal and Wildlife legal framework
Promote wildlife habitat
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.
HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (HSI), works around the globe to promote the human-animal bond, rescue and protect dogs and cats, improve farm animal welfare, protect wildlife, promote animal-free…
World animal protection is a global organization working to end factory farming and wildlife exploitation. we expose cruel systems, promote animal-friendly alternatives, and influence policy change. for over 75 years, we've been rewriting…
At Environmental and Animal Defense, our mission is to provide Colorado with access to affordable legal services for environmental and animal issues, in addition to protecting wildlife and their habitats through enforcement of the law. No…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildearth Guardians and the most unlike its peers is Visions Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
23 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. 23 of the 43 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 PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds Footloose Montana ↗
- Who funds SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds MONTANA CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Bold Visions Conservation ↗
- Who funds CAPTAIN PAUL WATSON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WILDEARTH GUARDIANS ↗
- Who funds HEART OF THE VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds HAVEN ↗
- Who funds WOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INC ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds FRACTURED ATLAS INC ↗
- Who funds RAISON DETRE ↗
- Who funds Trap Free Montana Inc ↗
- Who funds VEGAN OUTREACH INC ↗
- Who funds Animals United Movement ↗
- Who funds HAWAII ISLAND HUMANE SOCIETY SPCA ↗
- Who funds Ballydidean Farm Sanctuary ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION CONGRESS ↗
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: Rangeland Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 The Jodar Family Foundation 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.