Skip to content

· Public charity

Bat Conservation International

BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL's (bci) mission is to conserve the world's bats and their ecosystems to ensure a healthy planet.

$879k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$71k
Largest
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.

Environment$217kScience & Tech$118kInternational$75kEducation$39kPublic Benefit$31kYouth Development$18kAnimals$15kHealth$15kOther$0
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 14 grants below total $269,336, the rows itemized in this filing. The $878,682 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $609,346 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 $10k4 grants · $32k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $166k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $71k
$14,750
Median grant
7
States reached
$36M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEW LEAF CLIMATE PARTNERS LLC$70,800
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE$30,945
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY$29,000
GILA WATERSHET PARTNERSHIP OF ARIZONA$22,225
BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK INC$17,017
NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY$14,914
LA TIERRA DEL JAGUAR$14,750
KUDO$14,658
RIO BRAVO RESTORATION$11,500
FARMTEK$11,441
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY$9,982
HIGH DESERT NATIVE PLANTS LLC$9,063
CORTADA FOUNDATION INC$7,541
NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BAT RESEARCH$5,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 48% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%LA TIERRA DEL JAGUAR: $15k → 15%GILA WATERSHET PARTNERSHIP OF ARIZONA: $22k → 15%NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY: $15k → 16%BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK INC: $17k → 19%ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $31k → 8%KUDO: $15k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $29k → 28%ANGELO STATE UNIVERSITY: $8k → 13%RIO BRAVO RESTORATION: $12k → 14%HIGH DESERT NATIVE PLANTS LLC: $9k → 21%US FOREST SERVICE: $29k → 14%NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BAT RESEARCH: $6k → 6%CORTADA FOUNDATION INC: $8k → 15%FARMTEK: $11k → 9%KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY: $6k → 20%NEW LEAF CLIMATE PARTNERS LLC: $71k → 4%RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY: $18k → 8%RAINFOREST TRUST: $25k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: $9k → 9%BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK INC: $5k → 19%RIO BRAVO RESTORATION: $12k → 14%RAINFOREST TRUST: $25k → 6%RAINFOREST TRUST: $25k → 6%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
NY
IA
NJ
CA
CO
VA
AZ
KS
TN
DC
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $603k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions, $526k to organizations and $77k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

North America (Canada and Mexico)$328k · 54% · 1 grant · 2 people

Stated purpose: BAT RESEARCH & CONSERVATION · RESEARCH GRANT - BATS

Sub-Saharan Africa$175k · 29% · 1 grant · 4 people

Stated purpose: BAT RESEARCH & CONSERVATION · RESEARCH GRANT - BATS

East Asia and the Pacific$57k · 9% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: BAT RESEARCH & CONSERVATION

South America$22k · 4% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: BAT RESEARCH & CONSERVATION

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$21k · 3% · 1 grant · 1 person

Stated purpose: BAT RESEARCH & CONSERVATION · RESEARCH GRANT - BATS

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.

32%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$169k · 4 repeat orgs$365k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
7

Total granted

$169k
$124k

Still filing today

75%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 11% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $241k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentInternationalPublic BenefitAnimalsEducationPhilanthropyOther
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

  • RT
    RAINFOREST TRUST
    3× · 2020–2022 · $75k · revenue +54%
  • TT
    TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
    3× · 2017–2024 · $49k
  • RB
    RIO BRAVO RESTORATION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $23k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
    one grant, 2017 · $44k
  • AR
    AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
    one grant, 2017 · $29k
  • RT
    RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2017 · $18k
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
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
2
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
3
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
4
Natura Bolivia Foundation

The Natura Bolivia Foundation is dedicated to implementing, and evaluating the impact of conservation and development programs, with a focus on watershed conservation, protected areas, and incentive based conservation in Bolivia. We work…

International
5
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
6
Fundacion Cordillera Tropical

Conservation of natural resources

International
7
Northern Jaguar Project

The mission of the northern jaguar project is to preserve and recover the world's northermost population of the jaguar, its unique natural habitat, and native wildlife under its protection as a flagship, keystone, and umbrella species.

Animals
8
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—
9
National Ecological Observatory Network Inc
Recreation & Sports
10
National Wildlife Federation

Unite all americans to ensure wildlife thrives in a rapidly changing world.

Animals
11
Natura International Inc

Natura International conserves rainforests and other key natural ecosystems and the endangered species they contain through creation of protected areas in collaboration with local governments and communities in Latin America. In this way…

Public Benefit
12
Wild Landscapes Inc

Wild landscapes, inc. (wli) is dedicated to conserving large and connected landscapes globally significant to wildlife and crucial to local communities. our environmental conservation strategy is to empower communities, conservationists,…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rainforest Trust; 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

9 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. 9 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

New Leaf Climate Partners: $70,800 · OtherNew Leaf Climate PartnersTEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: $48,785 · OtherTEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SYSTEMUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: $43,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDAAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA): $29,223 · OtherAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA)RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY: $17,600 · OtherRUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITYNORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY: $14,914 · OtherKUDO: $14,658 · OtherGROWERS SUPPLY: $11,441 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE: $10,750 · Other+5 more: $42,311 · Other+5 moreRAINFOREST TRUST: $74,727 · InternationalRAINFOREST TRUS…RIO BRAVO RESTORATION: $23,065 · EnvironmentRIO BRAVO REST…Gila Watershed Partnership of Arizona: $22,225 · EnvironmentGila Watershed…BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK: $22,027 · EnvironmentBORDERLANDS RE…ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $30,945 · Public BenefitWildlife Conservation Society: $29,000 · AnimalsLa Tierra del Jaguar: $14,750 · EducationCANDID: $7,541 · PhilanthropyNORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BAT RESEARCH: $5,500 · Science & Tech
Other$303,982International$74,727Environment$67,317Public Benefit$30,945Animals$29,000Education$14,750Philanthropy$7,541Science & Tech$5,500

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 budgetRAINFOREST TRUST: $74,727 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $29,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRIO BRAVO RESTORATION: $23,065 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetGila Watershed Partnership of Arizona: $22,225 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetBORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK: $22,027 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCANDID: $7,541 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.

  • Who funds RAINFOREST TRUST ↗
  • Who funds ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
  • Who funds RIO BRAVO RESTORATION ↗
  • Who funds Gila Watershed Partnership of Arizona ↗
  • Who funds BORDERLANDS RESTORATION NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds La Tierra del Jaguar ↗
  • Who funds CANDID ↗
  • Who funds NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BAT RESEARCH ↗

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.

National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC12.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Arizona Community 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 Bat Conservation International funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bat Conservation International. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%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 · 0–90%
    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 Bat Conservation International’s filings →

    More from the funding graph