Skip to content
Zoological Society of Cincinnati at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Zoological Society of Cincinnati

Creating adventure, conveying knowledge, conserving nature, and serving the community.

$952k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$106k
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 2025.

Animals$1.2MEducation$178kEnvironment$60k
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 14 grants below total $387,825, the rows itemized in this filing. The $952,427 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $564,602 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 $10k2 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $194k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $178k
$20,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$330M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON$106,000
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK$72,244
SNOW LEOPARD CONSERVANCY$31,000
INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION$29,000
GLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORK$25,000
WILD NATURE INSTITUTE$25,000
SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB$20,000
WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL$20,000
WORLD PARROT TRUST$12,581
RED PANDA NETWORK$11,000
ELAKHA ALLIANCE$10,000
FRIENDS OF BONOBOS$10,000
TURTLE SURVIVAL ALLIANCE$9,000
HOUSTON ZOO$7,000
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 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 87% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%GLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORK: $50k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $22k → 11%Wildlife Conservation Network: $10k → 8%SNOW LEOPARD CONSERVANCY: $31k → 9%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $72k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $35k → 11%HOUSTON ZOO: $20k → 16%WORLD PARROT TRUST: $13k → 10%TURTLE SURVIVAL ALLIANCE: $15k → 12%SEA TO SHORE ALLIANCE: $15k → 9%FLORIDA SOUTHWESTERN STATE COLLEGE PROF DONINI: $10k → 11%SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB: $20k → 13%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $56k → 11%RED PANDA NETWORK: $11k → 15%ELAKHA ALLIANCE: $10k → 16%WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $32k → 9%WILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $25k → 7%GLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORK: $25k → 6%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $15k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $29k → 11%HOUSTON ZOO: $20k → 16%SEA TO SHORE ALLIANCE: $15k → 9%SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB: $15k → 13%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $20k → 9%WILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $25k → 7%GLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORK: $18k → 6%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $27k → 11%SEA TO SHORE ALLIANCE: $15k → 9%SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB: $15k → 13%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $20k → 9%WILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $18k → 7%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $25k → 11%SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB: $15k → 13%WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $20k → 9%INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $24k → 11%SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB: $15k → 13%WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $20k → 9%THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $24k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $106k → 9%THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $22k → 11%WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $20k → 9%THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $22k → 11%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 9%THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $22k → 11%WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $17k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $50k → 9%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

NH
WA
MN
OR
CA
MO
NC
SC
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $442k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 6 regions, $434k to organizations and $8k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$238k · 54% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: CHEETAH CONSERVATION · LION CONSERVATION · PENGUIN CONSERVATION

East Asia and the Pacific$86k · 19% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: CONSERVATION SUPPORT DONATION · YELLOW-HEADED TEMPLE TURTLE HABITAT FOR CONSERVATION AWARENESS AND SPECIES PROTECTION · COLLABORATIVE JAPANESE GIANT SALAMANDER CONSERVATION AND HABITAT RESTORATION

South Asia$48k · 11% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CONSERVATION SUPPORT DONATION

Central America and the Caribbean$35k · 8% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: CONSERVATION SUPPORT DONATION

South America$28k · 6% · 1 grant · 1 person

Stated purpose: CONSERVATION SUPPORT DONATION · SUPPORT SMALL WILD CAT RESEARCH & CONSERVATION

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$8k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: MONITORING THE FIRST WILD SIHEK IN 36 YEARS

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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 24% of Zoological Society of Cincinnati’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Zoological Society of Cincinnatilessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 28% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
$1.3M · 15 repeat orgs$150k to everyone else

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
5

Total granted

$1.3M
$96k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+68%

Still filing today

93%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $54k 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
AnimalsEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • TI
    THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $231k · revenue +27%
  • WE
    WILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL
    8× · 2017–2025 · $159k · revenue +41%
  • WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2019–2021 · $156k · revenue +44%

Funded once

  • WU
    WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $22k · revenue +87%
  • FS
    FLORIDA SOUTHWESTERN STATE COLLEGE PROF DONINI
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
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
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
2
Wildlife Sos

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

Animals
3
Rainforest Trust

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

International
4
Wildlife Protection Solutions

To protect endangered species.

Animals
5
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
6
Wildlife Impact

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

Animals
7
Asia Wild

Asia Wild is committed to rescuing and protecting the welfare of animals worldwide. They support small, locally-focused organizations that tirelessly combat numerous issues that threaten wildlife survival, including poaching, abuse,…

Animals
8
Endangered Species International

Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.

Animals
9
Galapagos Whale Shark Project
—
10
Wild Earth Allies Inc

Our mission is to protect vital areas of our planet for wildlife and people through local conservation action. Our vision is a world where wildlife and people flourish in healthy ecosystems that sustain us all.

Environment
11
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
12
Global Wildlife Foundation

Funding innovative veterinary research and supporting organizations dedicated to preserving and protecting wildlife for future generations.

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 Red Panda Network. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

20 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. 20 of the 23 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
14/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $230,542 · AnimalsTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATIONWILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $159,000 · AnimalsWILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONALWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $97,244 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INCGLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORK: $92,165 · AnimalsGLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORKSAVE THE MANATEE CLUB INC: $80,000 · AnimalsSAVE THE MANATEE CLUB INCWILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $68,000 · AnimalsWILD NATURE INSTITUTEHouston Zoo Inc: $58,550 · AnimalsHouston Zoo IncINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION: $42,900 · Animals+7 more: $149,531 · Animals+7 moreUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $156,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHING…Sea to Shore Alliance: $65,000 · OtherSea to Shore AllianceWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50,000 · OtherWASHINGTON UNIVERSITYFLORIDA SOUTHWESTERN STATE COLLEGE PROF DONINI: $10,000 · OtherWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $155,545 · EducationWASHINGTON UN…UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $22,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF…Elakha Alliance: $10,000 · EnvironmentGLOBAL CONSERVATION: $8,500 · Environment
Animals$977,932Other$281,000Education$177,545Environment$18,500

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 budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION: $230,542 over 9y, 1.2% of budgetWILD ENTRUST INTERNATIONAL: $159,000 over 8y, 12% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $155,545 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $97,244 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetGLOBAL CONSERVATION NETWORK: $92,165 over 3y, 5.0% of budgetSAVE THE MANATEE CLUB INC: $80,000 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetWILD NATURE INSTITUTE: $68,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetSea to Shore Alliance: $65,000 over 5y, 12% of budgetHouston Zoo Inc: $58,550 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION: $42,900 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetTHE TURTLE SURVIVAL ALLIANCE FOUNDATION: $32,100 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetSnow Leopard Conservancy: $31,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetFRIENDS OF BONOBOS: $30,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetRED PANDA NETWORK: $24,800 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $22,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL BIRD RESCUE: $13,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWORLD PARROT TRUST USA INC: $12,581 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetGLOBAL CONSERVATION: $8,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetASIAN ELEPHANT SUPPORT: $5,550 over 1y, 3.6% 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…Indianapolis Zoologic…Sacramento Zoological…Dallas Zoo Management…Houston Zoo IncJacksonville Zoologic…Gs Donor Advised Phil…American Endowment Fo…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Network for Good
Columbus Zoological Park AssociationOH20× affinity7 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 · Indianapolis Zoological Society Inc · Sacramento Zoological Society · Dallas Zoo Management Inc · Houston Zoo Inc · Jacksonville Zoological Society Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Network for Good

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 10%
  • Elakha Alliance: 10% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get 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.

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 23 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 Zoological Society of Cincinnati’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