· Public charity
Coastal Conservation Association
Cca is organized for the purpose of promoting and advancing the preservation, conservation and protection of the marine, animal and plant life and resources of the coastal areas of the united states, both onshore and offshore, for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $10k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $188k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $736k
- $250k+2 grants · $2.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CCA TEXAS FUND | $1,605,000 |
| HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC | $1,002,000 |
| TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION | $183,843 |
| TEXAS A & M CORPUS CHRISTI | $133,500 |
| TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT | $131,315 |
| TAMPA BAY WATCH | $99,225 |
| COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES PROGRAM | $86,204 |
| TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY GALVESTON | $52,000 |
| UCF FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST | $46,140 |
| LEE CO ARTIFICIAL REEF ASSOCIATION | $33,808 |
| FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FL INC | $31,862 |
| ANGLERS FOR CONSERVATION | $20,000 |
| SARASOTA BAY WATCH | $20,000 |
| BLUE LATITUDES LLC | $19,500 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +33% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $235k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- CTCCA TEXAS FUND6× · 2018–2024 · $6.6M · revenue +284% · 83% of their budget
PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS8× · 2017–2024 · $823k · revenue +21%- TATEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $699k · revenue +362%
Funded once
- LSLOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2021 · $200k
- TSTEXAS SURF CONSERVANCYone grant, 2022 · $152k · revenue -70% · 80% of their budget
MOTE MARINE LABORATORY INCgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $92k · revenue +185%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The texas state aquarium's mission is engaging people with animals, inspiring appreciation for our seas, and supporting wildlife conservation. its vision is to be a global leader in fostering support for the conservation of the gulf of…
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
The mission of the foundation is to restore and protect america's everglades through its three programmatic pillars: science, advocacy and education. (continued on schedule o)
Mission is to seek protection of land and water resources through restoration and conservation; and conducting education and outreach on the ecological and economic importance of natural lands. we protect land from development and protect…
Gfa works in partnership with and on behalf of the greater farallones and cordell bank national marine sanctuaries to preserve, monitor, research, educate about and enhance these invaluable marine resources.
Fish and wildlife conservation and outreach including public awareness. Fifteen public relations campaign on social media with over 7.5 million impressions. Twenty plus speaking engagements to a variety of conservation organizations…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas and the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Rio Grande Valley Reef Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 29 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
22 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 22 of the 37 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds CCA TEXAS FUND ↗
- Who funds THE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS ↗
- Who funds TEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TEXAS SURF CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds MOTE MARINE LABORATORY INC ↗
- Who funds COASTAL BEND BAYS & ESTUARIES PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds REEF BALL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds MEXICO BEACH ARTIFICIAL REEF ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF INC ↗
- Who funds FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA I ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SARASOTA BAY WATCH INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Bobwhite Brigade ↗
- Who funds ANGLERS FOR CONSERVATION INC ↗
- Who funds OPERATION GAME THIEF ↗
- Who funds CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Galveston Bay Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LEADERSHIP AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Nature Conservancy · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Building Conservation Trust · Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation · Cheniere Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Coastal Conservation Association funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Mote Marine Laboratory Inc — 4% of income from government
- University of Florida Leadership and Education Foundation Inc — 3% of income from government
- Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc — 2% of income from government
- Fish & Wildlife Foundation of Florida I — 1% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.