Skip to content
Wildaid Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Wildaid Inc

Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.

$248k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Environment$2.0MAnimals$234kInternational$17k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $67,865, the rows itemized in this filing. The $248,119 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $180,254 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

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$50,441
Median grant
2
States reached
$8.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WILD AFRICA FUND$50,441
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME$17,424
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 11% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%WILD AFRICA FUND: $1.1M → 9%CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $5k → 10%ISLAND CONSERVATION: $7k → 13%SAVE THE RHINO INTERNATIONAL: $50k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $50k → 28%GREAT PLAINS FOUNDATION: $25k → 11%MARA ELEPHANT PROJECT: $23k → 5%BIG LIFE FOUNDATION: $49k → 9%AFRICAN PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE FUND: $50k → 5%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $200k → 7%WILD AFRICA FUND: $451k → 9%SAVE THE RHINO INTERNATIONAL: $50k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $31k → 28%WILD AFRICA FUND: $50k → 9%UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME: $17k → 17%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $180k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$180k · 100% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: PROJECT SUPPORT - CONSERVATION PROJECTS IN WATAMU, KENYA · PROJECT SUPPORT - CONSERVATION PROJECTS IN TANZANIA

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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.8M · 3 repeat orgs$202k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$1.8M
$184k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-31%
+125%

Still filing today

100%
86%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’20’21’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentPhilanthropyInternationalOther
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

  • WA
    WILD AFRICA
    3× · 2023–2025 · $1.6M · 31% of their budget
  • ST
    SAVE THE RHINO INTERNATIONAL INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $100k · revenue -84%
  • WC
    Wildlife Conservation Society
    2× · 2020–2021 · $81k · revenue +57%

Funded once

  • AP
    AFRICAN PEOPLE & WILDLIFE FUND INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue +125%
  • BL
    BIG LIFE FOUNDATION USAgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $49k · revenue +133%
  • SL
    SEALEGACY LLC
    one grant, 2020 · $25k
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
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
3
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
4
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
5
Panthera Corporation

Panthera's mission is the conservation of the world's 40 wild cat species, many of which are endangered or threatened. panthera develops, implements and oversees wild cat conservation strategies on a global scale.

Animals
6
Akashinga Inc

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

Animals
7
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
8
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
9
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…

—
10
Rainforest Trust

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

International
11
Wildlife Impact

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

Animals
12
International Crane Foundation Inc

The international crane foundation is committed to a world where cranes, people, and our natural heritage thrive together.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Big Life Foundation Usa; the most unlike its peers is Wildlife Conservation Society. 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

11 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. 11 of the 12 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WILD AFRICA: $1,629,888 · AnimalsWILD AFRICASAVE THE RHINO INTERNATIONAL INC: $100,000 · AnimalsWildlife Conservation Society: $80,989 · Animals+4 more: $129,025 · Animals+4 moreTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $200,000 · OtherTHE NATURE …SEALEGACY LLC: $25,000 · OtherSEALEGACY L…MARA ELEPHANT PROJECT USA INC: $23,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $17,424 · InternationalISLAND CONSERVATION: $7,400 · Environment
Animals$1,939,902Other$225,000Philanthropy$23,000International$17,424Environment$7,400

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 budgetWILD AFRICA: $1,629,888 over 3y, 31% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $200,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAVE THE RHINO INTERNATIONAL INC: $100,000 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $80,989 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAFRICAN PEOPLE & WILDLIFE FUND INC: $49,640 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetBIG LIFE FOUNDATION USA: $49,140 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetISLAND CONSERVATION: $7,400 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $5,245 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

American Endowment Fo…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Endowment FoundationOH9.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable 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 Wildaid Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wildaid Inc. 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%10%20%30%40%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
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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 12 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 Wildaid’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