Skip to content
Utah Zoological Society at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Utah Zoological Society

Create champions for wildlife by making connections between people and animals to inspire action.

$374k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
10
States reached
$50k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Animals$1.1MEnvironment$239kRecreation & Sports$11k
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 14 grants below total $210,200, the rows itemized in this filing. The $373,735 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $163,535 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $140k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$10,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$97M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
POLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL$50,000
INTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION$25,000
INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION$20,000
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY$15,000
GORONGOSA PROJECT INC$15,000
GORILLA REHABILITATION & CONSERVATION CENTER INC$15,000
INTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST$10,000
CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS & LANDSCAPES$10,000
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC$10,000
WILDLIFE SOS$10,000
PANTHERA CORPORATION$10,000
SAVE GIRAFFES NOW$8,000
JORDAN RIVER COMMISSION$6,200
WORLD PARROT TRUST USA INC$6,000
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 11%, 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%GORONGOSA PROJECT INC: $45k → 11%Lewa Wildlife Conservancy USA: $10k → 8%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $10k → 10%PANTHERA CORPORATION: $10k → 17%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $25k → 11%SAVE GIRAFFES NOW: $10k → 14%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $15k → 22%WORLD PARROT TRUST USA INC: $6k → 10%CARNIVORES LIVIEHOODS & LANDSCAPES: $10k → 8%WILDLIFE SOS: $10k → 8%GORILLA REHABILITATION & CONSERVATI: $30k → 12%Giraffe Conservation Foundation US: $10k → 17%INTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $10k → 9%Assoc of Zoos & Aquariums: $13k → 8%GORONGOSA PROJECT INC: $45k → 11%Lewa Wildlife Conservancy USA: $10k → 8%Wildlife Conservation Network: $8k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $20k → 11%SAVE GIRAFFES NOW: $10k → 14%CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS & LANDSCAPES: $10k → 8%WILDLIFE SOS: $10k → 8%GORILLA REHABILITATION AND CONSERVA: $20k → 12%Giraffe Conservation Foundation US: $10k → 17%SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $10k → 9%Gorongosa Project Inc: $40k → 11%Wildlife Conservation Network: $8k → 10%International Rhino Foundation: $13k → 11%SAVE GIRAFFES NOW: $8k → 14%Carnivores Livelihoods & Landscape: $6k → 8%WILDLIFE SOS: $10k → 8%GORILLA REHABILITATION AND CONSERVA: $20k → 12%Giraffe Conservation Foundation US: $10k → 17%Snow Leopard Trust: $10k → 9%GORONGOSA PROJECT INC: $40k → 11%Marine Mammal Center: $7k → 8%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%Wildlife SOS: $8k → 8%GORILLA REHABILITATION & CONSERVATION CENTER INC: $15k → 12%Gorongosa Project Inc: $20k → 11%International Rhino Foundation: $7k → 11%Wildlife SOS: $8k → 8%Gorongosa Project Inc: $19k → 11%Turtle Survival Alliance: $70k → 11%Utah Chapter AAZK: $6k → 8%GORONGOSA PROJECT INC: $15k → 11%Turtle Survival Alliance: $47k → 11%Turtle Survival Alliance: $30k → 11%Utah Division of Wildlife Resources: $10k → 8%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
MT
MI
OH
CA
UT
CO
MD
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $150k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$95k · 63% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: CHECK

South Asia$45k · 30% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

South America$10k · 7% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CHECK

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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.
$1.5M · 15 repeat orgs$67k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +94% since the first grant, against +63% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
4

Total granted

$1.5M
$40k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+94%
+63%

Still filing today

93%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k 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
AnimalsInternationalCivil 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

  • PB
    POLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL
    9× · 2017–2025 · $404k · revenue +173%
  • Gorongosa Project Inc
    8× · 2018–2025 · $244k · revenue +130%
  • IE
    INTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2025 · $230k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • AA
    AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $13k · revenue +83%
  • SO
    STATE OF UTAH GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • SF
    SAOLA FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue +23%
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
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
2
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
3
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
4
Akashinga Inc

Deliver ecological stability and long-term protection of large-scale wilderness by supporting and empowering local communities.

Animals
5
Noble Gorilla Reserve Foundation
—
6
Amazon Conservation Team

The amazon conservation team (act) partners with indigenous and other local communities to protect tropical forests and strengthen traditional culture.

Science & Tech
7
Mozparks Initiative Inc

Mozparks initiativ, inc has been established to address and defeat the onslaught on elephant, rhino, and other species of wildlife and the habitat of wildlife in mozambique. mozparks partners with non-governmental organizations, local…

—
8
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
9
Sos Rhino
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
Wildlife Impact

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

Animals
12
Zambia Carnivore Programme

To safeguard large carnivores, their prey, and habitat in zambia through applied research, conservation, and education.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The International Rhino Foundation; 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

18 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. 18 of the 22 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)
18/18
Grantees still filing
15/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

POLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL: $404,000 · AnimalsPOLAR BEARS INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION: $230,000 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATIONTHE TURTLE SURVIVAL ALLIANCE FOUNDATION: $147,000 · AnimalsTHE TURTLE SURVIVAL ALLIANCE FOUNDATIONGORILLA REHABILITATION CONSERVATION EDUCATION (GRACE) CENTER INC: $110,000 · AnimalsGORILLA REHABILITATION CONSERVATION EDUCATION (GRACE) CENTER INCTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $94,701 · AnimalsTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATIONWILDLIFE SOS: $46,000 · Animals+9 more: $190,493 · Animals+9 moreGorongosa Project Inc: $243,500 · Civil RightsGorongosa Project…CARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES: $46,098 · OtherTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $15,000 · OtherAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOO KEEPERS: $11,000 · OtherSTATE OF UTAH GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $10,000 · OtherJordan River Commission: $6,200 · OtherGIRAFFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION USA: $30,000 · International
Animals$1,222,194Civil Rights$243,500Other$88,298International$30,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPOLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL: $404,000 over 9y, 3.3% of budgetGorongosa Project Inc: $243,500 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION: $230,000 over 8y, 4.5% of budgetTHE TURTLE SURVIVAL ALLIANCE FOUNDATION: $147,000 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetGORILLA REHABILITATION CONSERVATION EDUCATION (GRACE) CENTER INC: $110,000 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $94,701 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetCARNIVORES LIVELIHOODS AND LANDSCAPES: $46,098 over 6y, 30% of budgetWILDLIFE SOS: $46,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetSAVE GIRAFFES NOW: $38,000 over 4y, 3.0% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $36,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL SNOW LEOPARD TRUST: $35,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetGIRAFFE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION USA: $30,000 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetLewa Wildlife Conservancy USA: $25,578 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetPANTHERA CORPORATION: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INC: $12,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSAOLA FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER: $7,415 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWORLD PARROT TRUST USA INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

Columbus Zoological P…Zoological Society of…Dallas Zoo Management…Houston Zoo IncJacksonville Zoologic…East Coast Zoological…Nashville Zoo IncDetroit Zoological So…Riverbanks SocietyDallas Zoological Soc…The Caldwell Foundati…Commonwealth Zoologic…
Columbus Zoological Park AssociationOH22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Columbus Zoological Park Association · Zoological Society of San Diego · Dallas Zoo Management Inc · Houston Zoo Inc · Jacksonville Zoological Society Inc · East Coast Zoological Society of Florida Inc · Nashville Zoo Inc · Detroit Zoological Society · Riverbanks Society · Dallas Zoological Society · The Caldwell Foundation · Commonwealth Zoological Corporation D/B/A Zoo New England

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 Utah Zoological Society funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Utah Zoological Society. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Giraffe Conservation Foundation Usa: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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 22 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 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 Utah Zoological Society’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