· Public charity
Conservation International Foundation
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 67 grants below total $31,692,555 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $101,210,521 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $69,517,966 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $6k
- $10k–50k21 grants · $631k
- $50k–250k30 grants · $3.5M
- $250k+15 grants · $28M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FRIENDS OF THE MEXICAN FUND FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE INC | $12,648,925 |
| WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE | $7,362,721 |
| WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY | $1,566,581 |
| ANTARTIC AND SOUTHERN OCEAN COALITION | $1,186,753 |
| THE NATURE CONSERVANCY | $812,217 |
| RARE INC | $607,328 |
| INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES | $493,371 |
| ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS | $446,300 |
| NORTHERN MARIANAS COLLEGE | $425,000 |
| RESOURCES LEGACY FUND | $397,198 |
| OCEANA INC | $369,352 |
| UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP) | $360,000 |
| FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY US INC | $291,467 |
| HATCH ACCELERATOR FUND MANAGEMENT LLC | $285,174 |
| POLYNESIAN VOYAGING SOCIETY | $257,926 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY22–25, $344k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those 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
Grants abroad, by region — $68M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions, $67M to organizations and $695k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION · GRANT
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION · GRANT
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION · GRANT
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION · GRANT
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION · GRANT
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION · GRANT
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION
Stated purpose: CONSERVATION
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. 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 46% of Conservation International Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 6% of the giving stays in VA; read by stated purpose it is 1% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +26% since the first grant, against +18% for the ones you funded once.
83 repeat relationships — 45 still active in FY2025, 38 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 52% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15M 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
- WCWildlife Conservation Society9× · 2017–2025 · $8.9M · revenue +59%
- AAAntarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition5× · 2021–2025 · $3.9M · revenue +17% · 81% of their budget
- ICISLAND CONSERVATION5× · 2018–2022 · $3.4M · revenue +120%
Funded once
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION FOR A NEW AMERICAN UNIVERSITYgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $1.4M · revenue +94%- UDUS DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURYone grant, 2024 · $581k
- IOINSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL FINANCEone grant, 2022 · $400k · revenue +6%
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.
Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
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.
The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Our research has demonstrated that corals can adapt to the effects of environmental stressors if immediate threats are reduced and if we protect healthy, ecologically connected networks of reefs.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
To stabilize the population of marine species in danger, especially sharks and rays in the caribbean of guatemala; through science and community strengthening which will provide the creation of alternative livelihoods, which eventually…
Protecting and promoting the marine biodiversity of Hawai'i through coral restoration, ecological monitoring, regenerative tourism, and cultural integration
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Island Conservation and the most unlike its peers is Kupa Friends of Ho'okena Beach Park. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.7% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
106 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 106 of the 136 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 WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE MEXICAN FUND FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE ↗
- Who funds Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
- Who funds Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition ↗
- Who funds ISLAND CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds INT'L UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE & NATURAL RESOURCES - US ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION FOR A NEW AMERICAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds RARE ↗
- Who funds LIBERIA CONSERVATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds RESOURCES LEGACY FUND ↗
- Who funds The Ocean Foundation ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ↗
- Who funds OCEANA INC ↗
- Who funds Save the Waves Coalition ↗
- Who funds NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds REWILD ↗
- Who funds NIA TERO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE PEREGRINE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds POLYNESIAN VOYAGING SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds International Rivers Network ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL FINANCE ↗
- Who funds AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE TURTLE SURVIVAL ALLIANCE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GREEN FORESTS WORK INC ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATURA BOLIVIA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MADAGASCAR FAUNA AND FLORA GROUP ↗
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 Pew Charitable Trusts · The Nature Conservancy · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The Marisla Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Waitt Foundation · Mulago Foundation · National Geographic Society · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Walton Family Foundation Inc
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 Conservation International Foundation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Sea Education Association Inc — 12% of income from government
- Yale University — 12% of income from government
- Root Capital Inc — 9% of income from government
- University of Miami — 5% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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.