Skip to content
The Jodar Family Foundation at a glance

· 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.

$256k
Granted FY2024still arriving
14
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$41k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0185% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Animals$752kEnvironment$451kArts & Culture$276kRecreation & Sports$50kPublic Benefit$30kHuman Services$28kHousing & Shelter$10kEducation$7kOther$0
02FY2024 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $241k
$25,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Bold Visions Conservation$40,550
BOZEMAN SYMPHONY$35,000
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY$25,000
PETA$25,000
Yellowstone Ecological Research Cen$25,000
Captain Paul Watson Foundation$25,000
Wildearth Guardians$25,000
FOOTLOOSE MONTANA$10,000
SHARK$10,000
Kootenai Shelter$10,000
Nature Rising$10,000
COMMITTEE TO ABOLISH SPORTS HUNT$5,000
HEART OF THE VALLEY ANIMAL SHELTER$5,000
Raison Detre$5,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%INTERMOUNTAIN OPERA ASSOCIATION: $36k → 10%Nature Rising: $10k → 11%Wolves of The Rockies: $25k → 11%Kootenai Shelter: $10k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $10k → 8%COMMITTEE TO ABOLISH SPORTS HUNT: $10k → 16%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $25k → 17%Wildearth Guardians: $25k → 12%Bold Visions Conservation: $41k → 14%Giraffe Conservation Foundation: $10k → 13%SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $25k → 10%SHARK: $10k → 8%PETA: $25k → 19%INTERMOUNTAIN OPERA ASSOCIATION: $35k → 10%Nature Rising: $10k → 11%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $25k → 17%Tapestry: $15k → 10%Wildearth Guardians: $20k → 12%Bold Visions Conservation: $15k → 14%SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $25k → 10%SHARK: $10k → 8%PETA: $25k → 19%INTERMOUNTAIN OPERA ASSOCIATION: $35k → 10%The Intercept: $25k → 17%SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $25k → 10%SHARK: $10k → 8%PETA: $25k → 19%BOZEMAN SYMPHONY: $35k → 10%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $25k → 17%SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $25k → 10%SHARK: $10k → 8%PETA: $25k → 19%BOZEMAN SYMPHONY: $25k → 10%SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $25k → 10%SHARK: $10k → 8%PETA: $25k → 19%BOZEMAN SYMPHONY: $25k → 10%SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $25k → 10%PETA: $25k → 19%BOZEMAN SYMPHONY: $25k → 10%PETA: $25k → 19%BOZEMAN SYMPHONY: $20k → 10%PETA: $20k → 19%BOZEMAN SYMPHONY: $15k → 10%Captain Paul Watson Foundation: $25k → 17%Captain Paul Watson Foundation: $25k → 17%Yellowstone Ecological Research Cen: $25k → 10%Yellowstone Ecological Research Cen: $20k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
IL
NY
IN
OH
CA
VA
AZ
NM
HI
TX
FL
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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 27 repeat orgs$133k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +91% since the first grant, against +1% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
15

Total granted

$1.7M
$123k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+91%
+1%

Still filing today

67%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
AnimalsEnvironmentArts & CultureScience & TechFood & NutritionInternationalOther
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

  • PF
    PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $195k · revenue +147%
  • FM
    Footloose Montana
    7× · 2017–2024 · $176k · revenue +626% · 40% of their budget
  • BS
    BOZEMAN SYMPHONY SOCIETY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $165k · revenue +191%

Funded once

  • TI
    The Intercept
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • WO
    WOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INC
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -40%
  • AU
    Animals United Movement
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue -25%
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
Predator Defense

Protecting vital native predators & ending war on wildlife.

Animals
2
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
3
Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.

Animals
4
Speak Out for Animals

Animal and Wildlife legal framework

Animals
5
Forever Wild Wildlife Rescue
Animals
6
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
7
International Primate Protection League

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.

Animals
8
Humane World for Animals International

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…

Animals
9
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
10
World Animal Protection

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…

Animals
11
Environmental and Animal Defense

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…

Crime & Legal
12
Wild Souls Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation
Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildearth Guardians; 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.
04the grantee network

24 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. 24 of the 43 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/24
Grantees still filing
19/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC: $195,000 · AnimalsPEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INCFootloose Montana: $176,000 · AnimalsFootloose MontanaSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $150,000 · AnimalsSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETYCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $150,000 · AnimalsCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INCHEART OF THE VALLEY INC: $35,000 · Animals+7 more: $91,000 · Animals+7 moreBOZEMAN SYMPHONY SOCIETY: $165,000 · OtherBOZEMAN SYMPHONY SOCIETYINTERMOUNTAIN OPERA ASSOCIATION: $105,520 · OtherINTERMOUNTAIN OPERA ASSOCIATIONSHARK: $70,000 · OtherSHARKSHAKESPEARE IN THE PARKS: $55,000 · OtherSHAKESPEARE IN THE PARKSCOMMITTEE TO ABOLISH SPORTS HUNT: $45,000 · OtherCOMMITTEE TO ABOLISH SPORTS HUNTWILDEARTH GUARDIANS: $45,000 · OtherWILDEARTH GUARDIANSYellowstone Ecological Research Cen: $45,000 · OtherYellowstone Ecological Research CenHAVEN: $28,000 · OtherThe Intercept: $25,000 · Other+13 more: $130,000 · Other+13 moreNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $80,000 · EnvironmentBold Visions Conservation: $55,550 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION CONGRESS: $5,000 · EnvironmentMONTANA CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY: $70,000 · Arts & CultureFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $20,000 · Arts & CultureRAISON DETRE: $15,000 · Arts & CultureCAPTAIN PAUL WATSON FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Science & TechVEGAN OUTREACH INC: $15,000 · Food & NutritionVISIONS FOUNDATION: $4,802 · International
Animals$797,000Other$713,520Environment$140,550Arts & Culture$105,000Science & Tech$50,000Food & Nutrition$15,000International$4,802

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 budgetPEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC: $195,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetFootloose Montana: $176,000 over 7y, 40% of budgetBOZEMAN SYMPHONY SOCIETY: $165,000 over 8y, 2.8% of budgetSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $150,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetCENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC: $150,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $80,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMONTANA CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY: $70,000 over 5y, 13% of budgetBold Visions Conservation: $55,550 over 2y, 13% of budgetCAPTAIN PAUL WATSON FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetWILDEARTH GUARDIANS: $45,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetHEART OF THE VALLEY INC: $35,000 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetHAVEN: $28,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $25,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetWOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INC: $25,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetFRACTURED ATLAS INC: $20,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetVEGAN OUTREACH INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetRAISON DETRE: $15,000 over 2y, 8.2% of budgetHAWAII ISLAND HUMANE SOCIETY SPCA: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetAnimals United Movement: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCONSERVATION CONGRESS: $5,000 over 1y, 5.3% 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 PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC ↗
  • Who funds Footloose Montana ↗
  • Who funds BOZEMAN SYMPHONY SOCIETY ↗
  • 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 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds WOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INC ↗
  • Who funds FRACTURED ATLAS INC ↗
  • Who funds VEGAN OUTREACH INC ↗
  • Who funds Trap Free Montana Inc ↗
  • Who funds RAISON DETRE ↗
  • Who funds HAWAII ISLAND HUMANE SOCIETY SPCA ↗
  • Who funds Animals United Movement ↗
  • Who funds Ballydidean Farm Sanctuary ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION CONGRESS ↗

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.

Rangeland FoundationMorgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…Paypal Charitable Giv…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Rangeland FoundationWA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–75%
    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 43 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Jodar 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