Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Maue Kay 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.

$136k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$30k
Largest
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 2025.

Animals$846kEnvironment$536kFood & Nutrition$62kCivil Rights$17k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $11k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $125k
$10,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$334k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$30,000
BIG LIFE FOUNDATION$20,000
ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION$20,000
INT'L FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE$15,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
Earthjustice$10,000
FOOD BANK OF SBC$5,000
AFRICAN PEOPLE WILDLIFE FUND - APW$2,500
Living with Wolves Ltd$2,500
PAWS$1,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $13k → 10%Gorongosa Project Inc: $10k → 11%AKASHINGA: $10k → 22%The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust: $10k → 10%SAVE THE ELEPHANTS: $30k → 10%SHELDRICK WILDLIFE: $10k → 11%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%FOOD BANK OF SBC: $20k → 14%NATURAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCIL: $11k → 17%ELEPHANT SANCTUARY: $43k → 14%DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TR: $10k → 16%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $30k → 9%International Anti-poaching Foundat: $37k → 7%AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $10k → 10%The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust: $10k → 10%Wildlife Conservation Network - Sav: $30k → 10%SHELDRICK WILDLIFE: $10k → 11%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%FOOD BANK OF SBC: $10k → 14%NATURAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCIL: $11k → 17%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $30k → 9%Wildlife Conservation Network: $30k → 10%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $30k → 9%Wildlife Conserv NW - Save the Elep: $30k → 10%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $30k → 9%SAVE THE ELEPHANTS: $30k → 10%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $20k → 9%Wildlife Conserv NW - Save the Elep: $30k → 10%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $20k → 9%Wildlife Conserv NW - Save the Elep: $30k → 10%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $20k → 9%Wildlife Conservation Network: $25k → 10%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $20k → 9%ORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%INT'L FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: $15k → 14%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $20k → 9%INT'L FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: $15k → 14%INT'L FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: $15k → 14%INT'L FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: $15k → 14%INT'L FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: $15k → 14%INT'L FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: $15k → 14%INT'L FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: $11k → 14%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
ID
NY
MA
IN
PA
NJ
CA
VA
TN
DC
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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 25 repeat orgs$56k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +99% since the first grant, against +86% for those funded once.

25 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
5

Total granted

$1.4M
$56k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+99%
+86%

Still filing today

52%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentInternationalCivil RightsOther
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

  • BL
    BIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA
    9× · 2017–2025 · $220k · revenue +158%
  • INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $121k · revenue +99%
  • WC
    WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC
    6× · 2017–2022 · $101k · revenue +302%

Funded once

  • TE
    THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE
    one grant, 2018 · $43k · revenue -6%
  • Gorongosa Project Incgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +104%
  • Cheetah Conservation Fundgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue +69%
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
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
2
African Wildlife Foundation Inc

Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…

Animals
3
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
4
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
5
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
6
Wildlife Impact

Protect wildlife and ecosystems through research, evidence-based evaluation, capacity development and advocacy.

Animals
7
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
8
Wildlife Sos

Protecting india's precious wildlife from poaching, habitat loss, and human exploitation since 1995.

Animals
9
Speak Out for Animals

Animal and Wildlife legal framework

Animals
10
Wildlife Conservation Society

The wildlife conservation society (wcs) saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature.

Animals
11
Born Free Foundation
—
12
Wildlife Alliance Inc

Wildlife alliance is the leader in direct protection of forests and wildlife in tropical asia. our mission is to combat deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, and poverty by partnering with local communities and governments.…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc; the most unlike its peers is Gorongosa Project 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

19 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. 19 of the 31 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
16/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $220,000 · AnimalsBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USAINTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE INC: $121,000 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE INCWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $101,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INCAMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $92,500 · AnimalsAMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTSAKASHINGA INC: $52,000 · AnimalsAKASHINGA INCTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE: $42,500 · AnimalsTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEETHE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC: $40,000 · AnimalsTHE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC+5 more: $36,000 · AnimalsORANGUTAN FOUNDATION: $185,000 · OtherORANGUTAN FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $90,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $90,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNATURAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCIL: $72,000 · OtherNATURAL RESOURCES DEF COUNCILFOOD BANK OF SBC: $62,000 · OtherFOOD BANK OF SBCIndividual grant recipient: $60,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGREENPEACE INC: $35,000 · Other+7 more: $82,000 · Other+7 moreEARTHJUSTICE: $55,000 · EnvironmentGAVIOTA COAST CONSERVANCY: $7,500 · EnvironmentRainforest Action Network: $7,000 · EnvironmentGorongosa Project Inc: $10,001 · Civil RightsWILDLIFEDIRECT INC: $300 · International
Animals$705,000Other$676,000Environment$69,500Civil Rights$10,001International$300

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 budgetBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $220,000 over 9y, 0.9% of budgetINTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE INC: $121,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $101,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetAMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $92,500 over 9y, 2.4% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $55,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetAKASHINGA INC: $52,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE: $42,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC: $40,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetGREENPEACE INC: $35,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetLIVING WITH WOLVES LTD: $21,000 over 9y, 0.5% of budgetGorongosa Project Inc: $10,001 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGAVIOTA COAST CONSERVANCY: $7,500 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetNonhuman Rights Project Inc: $7,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $7,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetRainforest Action Network: $7,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetAFRICAN PEOPLE & WILDLIFE FUND INC: $4,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCheetah Conservation Fund: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBorn Free USA united with API: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 BIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA ↗
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE INC ↗
  • Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS ↗
  • Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
  • Who funds AKASHINGA INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE ↗
  • Who funds THE DAVID SHELDRICK WILDLIFE TRUST USA INC ↗
  • Who funds GREENPEACE INC ↗
  • Who funds LIVING WITH WOLVES LTD ↗
  • Who funds Gorongosa Project Inc ↗
  • Who funds GAVIOTA COAST CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds Nonhuman Rights Project Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds Rainforest Action Network ↗
  • Who funds AFRICAN PEOPLE & WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds Cheetah Conservation Fund ↗
  • Who funds Born Free USA united with API ↗
  • Who funds WILDLIFEDIRECT INC ↗

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 IncNY10.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 The Maue Kay Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Maue Kay Foundation. 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 32%
  • African People & Wildlife Fund Inc: 32% 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 · 0–75%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Maue Kay Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Maue Kay Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 31 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 Maue Kay’s filings →

More from the funding graph