Skip to content
The Taylor Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Taylor 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.

$50k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$20k
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$110kHealth$100kPublic Safety & Disaster$20kEnvironment$10kHuman Services$5kCivil Rights$5k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
$5,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$584k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SPECIAL LOVE$20,000
GENTLE GIANTS$10,000
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOC$5,000
COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER$5,000
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION$5,000
NATURAL LAND TRUST$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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 20% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%NATURAL LAND TRUST: $5k → 10%WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: $5k → 14%THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY: $5k → 14%COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER: $5k → 8%SPECIAL LOVE: $20k → 7%GENTLE GIANTS: $10k → 6%AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: $5k → 19%PROVIDENCE ANIMAL CENTER: $5k → 10%WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: $5k → 14%THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY: $5k → 14%COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER: $5k → 8%SPECIAL LOVE: $20k → 7%GENTLE GIANTS: $10k → 6%PROVIDENCE ANIMAL CENTER: $5k → 10%WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: $5k → 14%THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY: $5k → 14%COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER: $5k → 8%SPECIAL LOVE: $20k → 7%GENTLE GIANTS: $10k → 6%PROVIDENCE ANIMAL CENTER: $5k → 10%WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: $5k → 14%COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER: $5k → 8%SPECIAL LOVE: $20k → 7%GENTLE GIANTS: $10k → 6%PROVIDENCE ANIMAL CENTER: $5k → 10%WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT: $5k → 14%COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER: $5k → 8%SPECIAL LOVE: $20k → 7%GENTLE GIANTS: $10k → 6%NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOC: $5k → 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.
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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$230k · 6 repeat orgs$20k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
1

Total granted

$230k
$5k

Still filing today

83%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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
AnimalsEnvironmentHealthInternationalOther
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

  • SL
    SPECIAL LOVE INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $100k · revenue +34%
  • CW
    COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER
    5× · 2021–2025 · $25k · revenue +21%
  • WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $20k · revenue +167%

Funded once

  • WW
    WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
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
Animal Care Sanctuary

Animal care sanctuary's lifesaving mission as a no kill organization envisions a community that promotes turning compassion into action for companion animals by: 1.) adopting healthy pet companions into loving homes. 2.) promoting the…

Animals
2
Conservation Legacy

Conservation legacy engages future leaders who protect, restore, and enhance our nation's lands through community-based service.in 2024, conservation legacy engaged 2,524 participants who completed over 1.5 million service hours on public…

Youth Development
3
Delaware Museum of Nature and Science Inc

The museum is an educational corporation formed to ignite a life-long passion for exploring, discovering, and valuing nature and science.

—
4
Amazon Conservation Association

Amazon conservation unites science, people, and innovation to protect the amazon - the greatest wild forest on earth. as guardians of the most iconic forest on the planet, we bring together the power of the latest science and technology…

Environment
5
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
6
Washington Humane Society

The washington humane society protects animals, supports families, and advocates for positive change to create a world where all animals can thrive. we enrich the humanity of our communities by promoting compassion and encouraging people…

Animals
7
Delaware Nature Society Inc

Delaware nature society connects people with the natural world to improve our environment through education, advocacy, and conservation.

Environment
8
Columbus Zoological Park Association

Empowering people. saving wildlife.

Animals
9
Wilton Land Conservation Trust

Protecting, enhancing and conserving open spaces encompassing meadows, woodlands, wetlands, and waterways in the town of wilton ct.

Environment
10
The Conservation Law Center Inc

The conservation law center provides legal counsel to conservation organizations usually without charge, works to improve conservation law and policy, and offers law students a clinical experience in the practice of law.

Crime & Legal
11
Natural Areas Conservancy Inc

The natural areas conservancy champions urban natural areas in new york city and across the nation through innovative research, partnerships, and advocacy. we increase the health and resilience of urban forests and wetlands, catalyze…

Environment
12
Liberty Wildlife Inc

Liberty Wildlife nurtures the nature of Arizona by providing quality wildlife rehabilitation, environmental education and conservation consultation services for the community.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Parks Conservation Association; the most unlike its peers is Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center. 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

8 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. 8 of the 10 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SPECIAL LOVE INC: $100,000 · HealthSPECIAL LOVE INCGENTLE GIANTS: $50,000 · OtherGENTLE GIANTSWOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT: $5,000 · OtherWOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECTAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MARYLAND: $5,000 · OtherAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UN…COLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER: $25,000 · AnimalsCOLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE …DELAWARE COUNTY SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $20,000 · AnimalsDELAWARE COUNTY SOCIETY FOR…THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE: $15,000 · AnimalsTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN T…WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $20,000 · InternationalWORLD CEN…NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $5,000 · EnvironmentNatural Lands Trust Inc: $5,000 · Environment
Health$100,000Other$60,000Animals$60,000International$20,000Environment$10,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSPECIAL LOVE INC: $100,000 over 5y, 1.5% of budgetCOLORADO WOLF AND WILDLIFE CENTER: $25,000 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetDELAWARE COUNTY SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $20,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC: $20,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE: $15,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MARYLAND: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNatural Lands Trust Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Taylor Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Taylor Family 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s 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 · 0–5%
    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 10 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 Taylor 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