Skip to content
Warren Wildlife Gallery at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Private foundation

Warren Wildlife Gallery

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.

$7k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Education$106kEnvironment$51kAnimals$50kYouth Development$41kCommunity Improvement$6kScience & Tech$5kFood & Nutrition$2kRecreation & Sports$500Other$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAPITAL AREA COUNCIL$5,500
LAKE TRAVIS FFA ALUMNI ASSOCIATION$1,500
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:

Its human-services grants (FY19–24, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%KIDS OUTDOOR ZONE: $23k → 10%KIDS OUTDOOR ZONE: $5k → 10%THE KIDS OUTDOOR ZONE: $5k → 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.
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.

30%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$80k · 5 repeat orgs$188k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +59% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
17

Total granted

$80k
$188k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+59%
0%

Still filing today

60%
47%

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
EducationEnvironmentAnimalsHuman ServicesPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • TK
    THE KIDS OUTDOORS ZONE INC
    3× · 2019–2024 · $33k · revenue +106%
  • PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
    2× · 2018–2022 · $29k · revenue +6%
  • YL
    YOUNG LIFE
    4× · 2017–2020 · $4k · revenue +59%

Funded once

  • TT
    Tau Trustees Educational Foundation Inc
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue -86% · 70% of their budget
  • CF
    CONSERVATION FORCE LION AGING IN TANZANIA
    one grant, 2021 · $20k
  • CF
    CONSERVATION FORCE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -26%
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
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
2
Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation
—
3
Texas Prairieland Foundation
Philanthropy
4
Interlaken Wildlife Foundation
Animals
5
Livewilder Foundation
—
6
Foundation for Tx Wildlife

The texas wildlife association foundation, inc(twaf) increases natural resource literacy and promotes conservation and educational programs that connect texans to the land.

Animals
7
Carson Springs Wildlife Foundation
Animals
8
Mzuri Wildlife Foundation

Mzuri wildlife foundation is dedicated to promoting wildlife conservation and educating and encouraging the next generation of outdoor sports enthusiasts with an emphasis on women and youth.

Animals
9
Ducks Unlimited Inc Group Return

Ducks unlimited, inc. conserves, restores, and manages wetlands and associated habitats for north america's waterfowl. these habitats also benefit additional wildlife and people.

Environment
10
Coastal Prairie Conservancy

The Coastal Prairie Conservancy (CPC) works to sustain a resilient Texas by preserving coastal prairies, wetlands, farms, and ranches to benefit people and wildlife forever. Continued on Schedule OCPC conserves land, restores and enhances…

Environment
11
Orange County Wildlife Foundation
Animals
12
Wildlife Experience Inc
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas; the most unlike its peers is Banovich Wildscapes 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

12 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. 12 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Tau Trustees Educational Foundation Inc: $100,000 · OtherTau Trustees Educational Foundation IncCONSERVATION FORCE LION AGING IN TANZANIA: $20,000 · OtherCONSERVATION FORCE LION AGING IN TANZANIACAPITAL AREA COUNCIL: $11,000 · OtherCAPITAL AREA COUNCILOUTDOORS TOMORROW FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherOUTDOORS TOMORROW FOUNDATION+9 more: $21,403 · Other+9 moreTHE KIDS OUTDOORS ZONE INC: $33,400 · Human ServicesTHE KIDS OUTDO…PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $28,700 · EnvironmentPARKS AND WIL…Ducks Unlimited Inc: $2,500 · EnvironmentDucks Unlimit…CONSERVATION FORCE INC: $20,000 · AnimalsCONSERVATI…THE IVAN CARTER WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE INC: $5,000 · AnimalsTHE IVAN C…Texas A&M Foundation: $5,000 · EducationATX KIDS CLUB: $2,000 · EducationBANOVICH WILDSCAPES FOUNDATION: $5,000 · PhilanthropyYOUNG LIFE: $3,850 · Youth Development
Other$162,403Human Services$33,400Environment$31,200Animals$25,000Education$7,000Philanthropy$5,000Youth Development$3,850

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 budgetTau Trustees Educational Foundation Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 70% of budgetTHE KIDS OUTDOORS ZONE INC: $33,400 over 3y, 3.4% of budgetPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $28,700 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCONSERVATION FORCE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE IVAN CARTER WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBANOVICH WILDSCAPES FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYOUNG LIFE: $3,850 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetATX KIDS CLUB: $2,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetROUND ROCK BASEBALL LEAGUE: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCPATH CEREBRAL PALSY AWARENESS TRANSITION HOPE: $103 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.

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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA3.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Warren Wildlife Gallery funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Warren Wildlife Gallery. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%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
    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 · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Warren Wildlife Gallery?

    Find your warmest path to Warren Wildlife Gallery 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 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-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 Warren Wildlife Gallery’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