Skip to content
Coastal Conservation Association at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$3.6M
Granted FY2024still arriving
17
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$1.6M
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.

Environment$13MScience & Tech$1.6MAnimals$924kEducation$808kRecreation & Sports$13k
02FY2024 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $10k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $188k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $736k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.6M
$50,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$47M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
SARASOTA BAY WATCH$20,000
ANGLERS FOR CONSERVATION$20,000
BLUE LATITUDES LLC$19,500
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: $195k → 10%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $220k → 14%CCA TEXAS FUND: $2.8M → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $1.0M → 17%FRIENDS OF RGV REEF: $56k → 27%STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: $30k → 16%LEE CO ARTIFICIAL REEF ASSOCIATION: $34k → 11%MEXICO BEACH ARTIFICIAL REEF ASSOCIATION INC: $60k → 12%TAMPA BAY WATCH: $99k → 12%UCF FOUNDATION: $50k → 13%STANDFORD UNIVERSITY: $68k → 12%REEF BALL FOUNDATION: $32k → 27%BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LSU AND AGRICULTURE: $200k → 19%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: $131k → 10%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $193k → 14%THE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $2.0M → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $207k → 17%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $184k → 14%CCA TEXAS FUND: $1.6M → 16%TEXAS A & M CORPUS CHRISTI: $201k → 17%MOTE MARINE LABORATORY: $92k → 9%Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation: $158k → 14%THE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $932k → 16%TEXAS A & M CORPUS CHRISTI: $134k → 17%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $31k → 14%CCA TEXAS FUND: $800k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $127k → 17%CCA TEXAS FUND: $676k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $119k → 17%THE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $500k → 16%TEXAS A & M CORPUS CHRISTI: $110k → 17%The Building Conservation Trust: $424k → 16%TEXAS A & M CORPUS CHRISTI: $109k → 17%CCA TEXAS FUND: $400k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $100k → 17%CCA TEXAS FUND: $370k → 16%Harte Research Institute - TAMUCC: $96k → 17%THE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $331k → 16%TEXAS A & M CORPUS CHRISTI: $75k → 17%BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $46k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $52k → 17%THE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $42k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $51k → 17%THE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $32k → 16%Texas A&M Corpus Christi: $46k → 17%TEXAS SURF MUSEUM: $152k → 17%COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES PROGRAM: $86k → 17%UTMSI: $51k → 17%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

CA
MD
SC
LA
MS
GA
TX
FL
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$16M · 18 repeat orgs$917k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against +31% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
14

Total granted

$16M
$682k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+31%

Still filing today

61%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $235k 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
EnvironmentEducationAnimalsPublic BenefitOther
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

  • CT
    CCA TEXAS FUND
    6× · 2018–2024 · $6.6M · revenue +284% · 83% of their budget
  • PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $823k · revenue +21%
  • TA
    TEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $699k · revenue +362%

Funded once

  • LS
    LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2021 · $200k
  • TS
    TEXAS SURF CONSERVANCY
    one grant, 2022 · $152k · revenue -70% · 80% of their budget
  • MOTE MARINE LABORATORY INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $92k · revenue +196%
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
The Coral Reef and Marine Science Foundation Inc C/O James Bildner
—
2
Texas State Aquarium Association

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…

Animals
3
Gulf Fishery Research Foundation
Environment
4
Clean Reefs
Environment
5
Florida Conservation Group Inc

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…

Environment
6
California Wildlife Foundation

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

Animals
7
Coral Conservancy
—
8
The Everglades Foundation Inc

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)

Environment
9
Reef Environmental Education Foundation

Reef environmental education foundation (reef) was established as a nonprofit organization in 1990. reef conserves marine environments worldwide. our mission is to protect biodiversity and ocean life by actively engaging and inspiring the…

Recreation & Sports
10
For the Fishes

To address, educate, coordinate, and enhance enforcement capacity to end teh trade in coral reef wildlife for household and other small display aquariums. our supply and demand side strategies are directed locally and globally to…

Animals
11
Archbold Expeditions Inc

Archbold expeditions, inc.'s mission is to build and share the scientific knowledge needed to protect the life, lands, and waters of the heart of florida and beyond.

Unclassified
12
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana

The mission of the coalition to restore coastal louisiana (crcl) is to unite people in action to achieve a thriving, sustainable louisiana coast for all.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Florida Leadership and Education Foundation Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

22 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. 22 of the 37 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/22
Grantees still filing
15/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CCA TEXAS FUND: $6,636,000 · EnvironmentCCA TEXAS FUNDTHE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $4,333,638 · EnvironmentTHE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUSTPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $823,307 · EnvironmentPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS+7 more: $254,214 · EnvironmentTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-CORPUS CHRISTI: $1,753,500 · OtherTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-C…Texas A&M Univ at Galveston: $447,000 · OtherTexas A&M Univ at Galv…Texas Parks & Wildlife Department: $400,899 · OtherTexas Parks & Wildlife…LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $199,805 · OtherLOUISIANA STATE UNIVER…BLUE LATITUDES FOUNDATION: $118,725 · Other+11 more: $409,640 · Other+11 moreTEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION: $699,000 · EducationTEXAS SURF CONSERVANCY: $152,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $71,971 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $68,000 · EducationTHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $48,806 · Education+1 more: $20,000 · EducationREEF BALL FOUNDATION INC: $77,445 · AnimalsFRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF INC: $56,000 · AnimalsFISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA I: $54,362 · AnimalsOPERATION GAME THIEF: $15,000 · AnimalsUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LEADERSHIP AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 · Public Benefit
Environment$12,047,159Other$3,329,569Education$1,059,777Animals$202,807Public Benefit$1,000

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 budgetCCA TEXAS FUND: $6,636,000 over 6y, 83% of budgetTHE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST: $4,333,638 over 8y, 72% of budgetPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $823,307 over 8y, 1.2% of budgetTEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION: $699,000 over 8y, 5.5% of budgetTEXAS SURF CONSERVANCY: $152,000 over 1y, 80% of budgetMOTE MARINE LABORATORY INC: $91,920 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCOASTAL BEND BAYS & ESTUARIES PROGRAM INC: $86,204 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetREEF BALL FOUNDATION INC: $77,445 over 3y, 14% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $71,971 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $68,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEXICO BEACH ARTIFICIAL REEF ASSOCIATION INC: $60,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF INC: $56,000 over 1y, 7.8% of budgetFISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA I: $54,362 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $48,806 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSARASOTA BAY WATCH INC: $45,000 over 3y, 29% of budgetBobwhite Brigade: $20,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOPERATION GAME THIEF: $15,000 over 1y, 8.4% of budgetCHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC: $13,082 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGalveston Bay Foundation Inc: $9,928 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LEADERSHIP AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 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 ANGLERS FOR CONSERVATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Bobwhite Brigade ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA FOUNDATION 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 ↗

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.

The Nature ConservancyNational Fish and Wil…The Building Conserva…Recreational Boating …Cheniere FoundationAmerican Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Nature ConservancyVA18.5× affinity7 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Coastal Conservation Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Coastal Conservation Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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 37 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 Coastal Conservation Association’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