Action Wildlife Foundation Inc.

Grant seekers should understand upfront that Action Wildlife Foundation Inc. is not a conventional grantmaking foundation, despite being registered and indexed as a 501(c)(3) private foundation (EIN 06-1401697). It is a self-operating wildlife park and agricultural-education center in Goshen, CT, whose IRS mission statement is simply to "acquire and maintain operating assets of organization and display exhibits." Every year of financial history available (fiscal years 2010 through 2021, the most recent detailed data on file) shows $0 in grants paid to outside organizations or individuals — the foundation's giving figures represent its own program spending on animal care, exhibits, and site operations, not third-party grants. Its own website reinforces this directly, stating the park "does not receive any government funding or grants" and describing itself as funded entirely by admissions, gift-shop revenue, birthday-party and field-trip bookings, and donations that flow straight back into animal husbandry and enclosures. Leadership is a small, uncompensated family/board team: Heidi J. Jespersen (President), Chase W. Jespersen (Secretary/Treasurer), and Jeremiah Ruwet (Vice President), with James A. Mazzarelli and Teresa Asklar listed as officers in earlier filings. There is no grants staff, no program officer, and no published funding portfolio to study. For organizations hoping to secure a check from Action Wildlife Foundation for an external program, the realistic answer is: don't count on it. The more productive paths are (1) proposing an earned-partnership arrangement — co-branded education programming, a joint conservation or agricultural-literacy field-trip curriculum, or a cause-marketing tie-in around an event like Fall Fest — rather than a grant ask; (2) exploring in-kind collaboration (e.g., a wildlife-rehabilitation or 4-H/agricultural nonprofit proposing a shared program at the park); or (3) a direct, low-cost phone call to confirm whether informal community giving exists before investing time in a written proposal. Any first contact should go through events@actionwildlifefoundation.com or (860) 482-4464, addressed to Heidi Jespersen.

The organization's own multi-year financials confirm it functions as an operating foundation, not a distributing one. Across every fiscal year with grant data on file — 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 — grants_paid is $0. The "total giving" line reported in filings instead tracks internal program and operating expense, and it has trended downward over the long run: $526,914 (FY2010) → $388,142 (FY2011) → $341,979 (FY2012) → $430,567 (FY2013) → $390,792 (FY2014) → $340,805 (FY2018) → $265,843 (FY2019) → $268,624 (FY2020) → $222,288 (FY2021), an overall decline of roughly 58% over the decade. Total assets fell in step, from $3,863,603 (FY2010) to $2,456,070 (FY2021), and more recent third-party data (ProPublica, FY2025 filing) shows the deterioration has continued: total assets remain near $2.5 million, but liabilities now exceed them, producing negative net assets of -$209,493 in FY2025 versus -$226,490 in FY2024. Revenue is volatile and donation-dependent — contributions received ranged from a low of $5,200 (FY2011) to a high of $234,781 (FY2020) — while total revenue jumped from $362,521 (FY2024) to $563,066 (FY2025), a 55% single-year increase, yet expenses ($595,990 in FY2025) still outpaced revenue for a second straight year. There is no program-area or geographic breakdown to report because the foundation makes no sub-grants: 100% of spending is internal (animal care, exhibits, facilities, seasonal events). For grant-seeking purposes, the only usable "pattern" is that this funder's giving capacity to outside organizations has historically been zero and its own balance sheet is currently strained, which lowers the likelihood of a new external-giving program emerging in the near term.

The foundation's closest database peers are other small Arts & Culture-classified private foundations with comparable asset bases (roughly $2.4M-$2.5M), though none has a public grants program either, based on available data:

All six organizations sit in a tight asset band and share the Arts & Culture NTEE classification, but this appears to be an artifact of database matching by asset size and category rather than evidence of comparable grantmaking behavior — none of the five peers has a public website on file, and none has verifiable third-party grant activity either. Action Wildlife Foundation is distinguishable from this peer set mainly in that it is a physical, publicly visited operating facility (a wildlife park) rather than a dormant or pass-through family foundation, which at least gives grant seekers a tangible partnership entry point (the park itself) that the peer foundations likely do not offer.

No grant announcements, leadership transitions, or new program launches were identified for Action Wildlife Foundation in 2025-2026 through web search, news indexes, or social media. The most concrete recent development is financial: the foundation's fiscal year 2025 Form 990 (year ending June 2025) shows total revenue rising 55% year-over-year to $563,066, driven by contributions and earned park revenue, but expenses of $595,990 pushed the organization into its second consecutive annual deficit, deepening negative net assets from -$226,490 (FY2024) to -$209,493 (FY2025) — a slight improvement in the deficit trend but still a liabilities-exceed-assets position. On the ground, the park's current activity is entirely visitor- and education-facing: seasonal "Fall Fest" programming (hay rides, a corn maze, and pumpkin carving running September through November), early-morning "Safari Walkers" family events for young children in September, and ongoing birthday-party, field-trip, and animal-encounter bookings. The organization continues to participate in the Connecticut Kids Passport Program, a statewide reciprocal-admission initiative for family attractions, which is its only identifiable form of inter-organizational collaboration found in this research. No press coverage, award announcements, or executive changes beyond the standing leadership team (Heidi J. Jespersen, President; Chase W. Jespersen, Secretary/Treasurer; Jeremiah Ruwet, Vice President) were located.

The single most important piece of guidance for any organization considering Action Wildlife Foundation as a funding prospect is to verify, before investing proposal-writing time, that a grants program to outside organizations exists at all. Every available data point — nine years of $0 grants-paid in the foundation's own filings, an application_instructions field on file that reads "__none__," no grants/programs/how-to-apply page on actionwildlifefoundation.com, and the organization's own public statement that it "does not receive any government funding or grants" (silent on giving them) — points to this being an operating charity, not a distributing one. A generic cold LOI addressed to a grants committee will almost certainly go unanswered because no such committee appears to exist; the leadership team is a small, unpaid family board (Heidi J. Jespersen, Chase W. Jespersen, Jeremiah Ruwet) running day-to-day park operations, not reviewing proposals. If an organization still wants to pursue a relationship, the more realistic approaches are: (1) call (860) 482-4464 or email events@actionwildlifefoundation.com and ask directly, in a single short message, whether the foundation ever supports outside conservation, agricultural, or education organizations — a direct answer will save weeks versus a formal written proposal; (2) frame any ask as a partnership rather than a grant — for example, a 4-H chapter, wildlife rehabilitator, or agricultural-literacy nonprofit proposing a joint program hosted at the park is more aligned with the foundation's actual activity (education, agriculture, hands-on animal experiences) than a request for a check; (3) time outreach around the park's own event calendar (Fall Fest, September-November; Safari Walkers, September) when the organization is most actively promoting community engagement; and (4) recognize the foundation's own strained balance sheet (negative net assets in both FY2024 and FY2025) as a practical signal that unrestricted cash grants to outside groups are unlikely regardless of mission fit. The common mistake to avoid is treating this listing the way one would treat a conventional community or family foundation with an open RFP — the evidence strongly suggests that process does not exist here.