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

· Public charity

Zoological Society of Pittsburgh

The ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF PITTSBURGH is dedicated to being a leader in, and significant contributor to, the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

$114k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
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$287kEnvironment$154k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $25,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $113,694 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $88,694 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.
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$79M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
International Elephant Foundation$25,000
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 (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 30% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%AFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND: $10k → 8%TREE PITTSBURGH: $25k → 11%OKLAHOMA ZOO & BOTANICAL GARDEN: $8k → 16%SEA TO SHORE ALLIANCE: $15k → 9%SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB: $15k → 13%ASSOCIATION OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS: $30k → 8%AFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND: $9k → 8%SEA TO SHORE ALLIANCE: $13k → 9%AFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND: $8k → 8%SEA TO SHORE ALLIANCE: $8k → 9%AFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND: $6k → 8%SEA TO SHORE ALLIANCE: $8k → 9%AFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND: $6k → 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.

Grants abroad, by region: $51k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$43k · 84% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: SEE PART V WORKSHOP RENTAL · CONSERVATION EDUCATION

South America$8k · 16% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SEE PART V

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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$363k · 4 repeat orgs$78k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +262% since the first grant, against +88% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
4

Total granted

$363k
$78k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+262%
+88%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
AnimalsEnvironmentOther
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

  • IE
    INTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION
    7× · 2017–2024 · $190k · revenue +70%
  • WH
    Wild Horizons Wildlife Orphanage and Sanctuary
    6× · 2017–2022 · $92k · revenue +262%
  • AA
    AFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND INC
    5× · 2017–2022 · $39k · revenue +330%

Funded once

  • AA
    AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue +57%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FORESTgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue +88%
  • SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB INC
    one grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue -60%
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
Zoo Outreach Organisation

Wildlife conservation, research and education.

Environment
2
Wildlife Sos

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

Animals
3
Conservation Society of California

Through management of oakland zoo, the conservation society of california deepens connection with animals, saves wildlife, and inspires champions for the natural world.

Animals
4
Ocean Alliance Project

Protecting and promoting the marine biodiversity of Hawai'i through coral restoration, ecological monitoring, regenerative tourism, and cultural integration

Science & Tech
5
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
6
Marine Megafauna Foundation

Save threatened marine life using pioneering research, education, and sustainable conservation solutions

International
7
Wildlife Madagascar

Wildlife Madagascar is dedicated to the preservation and protection of Madagascars unique biodiversity through a multifaceted strategy and extensive collaborative efforts.

Animals
8
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
9
South Carolina Aquarium

Our mission is to inspire conservation of the natural world by exhibiting and caring for animals, by excelling in education and research, and by providing an exceptional visitor experience.

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
Oak Creek Zoological Conservatory
Animals
12
Florida Wildlife Federation

To safeguard Florida's water, wildlife, and wild spaces by taking action today to prevent irreversible loss tomorrow.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Inc; the most unlike its peers is International Elephant 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

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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION: $190,000 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATIONWild Horizons Wildlife Orphanage and Sanctuary: $91,500 · AnimalsWild Horizons Wildlife Orphanage and SanctuaryAFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND INC: $38,500 · AnimalsAFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND INCAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INC: $30,000 · AnimalsAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INCSAVE THE MANATEE CLUB INC: $15,000 · Animals+1 more: $7,500 · AnimalsSea to Shore Alliance: $42,500 · OtherSea to Sho…FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FOREST: $25,000 · Environment
Animals$372,500Other$42,500Environment$25,000

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 budgetINTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION: $190,000 over 7y, 3.9% of budgetWild Horizons Wildlife Orphanage and Sanctuary: $91,500 over 6y, 6.8% of budgetSea to Shore Alliance: $42,500 over 4y, 12% of budgetAFRICAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION FUND INC: $38,500 over 5y, 8.9% of budgetAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH URBAN FOREST: $25,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetSAVE THE MANATEE CLUB INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetOKLAHOMA ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $7,500 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.

Columbus Zoological P…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Columbus Zoological Park AssociationOH13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Columbus Zoological Park Association · 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 Zoological Society of Pittsburgh funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Zoological Society of Pittsburgh. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • African Aquatic Conservation Fund Inc: 58% of income from government
  • Save the Manatee Club Inc: 2% of income from government
  • American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Inc: 1% 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)
1rely 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 8 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Zoological Society of Pittsburgh’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