Skip to content
Global Fishing Watch Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Global Fishing Watch Inc

Global fishing watch advances ocean governance through increased transparency of human activity at sea.

$2.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$693k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Environment$2.5MPublic Benefit$472kHealth$378kScience & Tech$245kPhilanthropy$220kCivil Rights$139kSocial Science$75kEducation$70k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $1,283,802, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,114,784 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $830,982 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 · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $294k
  • $250k+2 grants · $960k
$218,861
Median grant
4
States reached
$69M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SKYTRUTH INC$692,718
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA -SANTA BARBARA$267,030
DUKE UNIVERSITY$218,861
NATURE CONSERVANCY$74,760
INTERNATIONAL MONITORING CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE NETWORK FOR FISHERIES$30,433
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 65% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%U of California Santa Cruz: $75k → 13%IMPACT PHILANTHROPY GROUP INTERNATIONAL MCS NETWORK: $316k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA -SANTA BARBARA: $267k → 14%Ocean Unite: $80k → 17%THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES INC: $94k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $219k → 11%ALLEN INSTITUTE FOR AI: $11k → 9%SKYTRUTH INC: $693k → 9%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $75k → 7%U of California Santa Cruz: $60k → 13%INTERNATIONAL MONITORING CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE NETWORK FOR FISHERIES: $62k → 14%U Of California Santa Barbara: $88k → 14%Oceans Unite: $20k → 17%Pew Charitable Trusts: $130k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $159k → 11%SKYTRUTH INC: $498k → 9%INTERNATIONAL MONITORING CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE NETWORK FOR FISHERIES: $36k → 14%U Of California Santa Barbara: $80k → 14%Pew Charitable Trusts: $90k → 14%SkyTruth: $100k → 9%INTERNATIONAL MONITORING CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE NETWORK FOR FISHERIES: $30k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA: $57k → 14%OCEANA: $200k → 14%SkyTruth: $25k → 9%U Of California Santa Barbara: $52k → 14%Oceana Inc: $200k → 14%OCEAN UNITE: $50k → 14%Oceana Inc: $200k → 14%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $831k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$806k · 97% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: TO SUPPORT STOPPING ILLEGAL TRAWLING IN PROTECTED AREAS. · IMPROVE IMPLEMENTATION OF PORT STATE CONTROLS AND REDUCE ILLEGALLY-CAUGHT FISH.

East Asia and the Pacific$25k · 3% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: TO SUPPORT STOPPING ILLEGAL TRAWLING IN PROTECTED AREAS.

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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.8M · 8 repeat orgs$202k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
4

Total granted

$3.8M
$202k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+12%

Still filing today

75%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentPhilanthropyEducationPublic BenefitHealthInternationalOther
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

  • S
    SKYTRUTH
    4× · 2018–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +529%
  • DU
    DUKE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PHYSICIANS INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $378k · revenue +26%
  • TP
    The Pew Charitable Trusts
    2× · 2018–2019 · $220k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • TC
    THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES
    one grant, 2022 · $94k · revenue +12%
  • DUKE UNIVERSITYgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $70k · revenue +44%
  • PS
    Practical Solutions
    one grant, 2019 · $28k
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
Schmidt Ocean Institute
Science & Tech
2
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
3
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…

Science & Tech
4
Observer Research Foundation America

Organization mission the observer research foundation america orf america is an independent, non-partisan, and nonprofit organization in washington dc dedicated to addressing policy challenges facing the united states, india, and their…

International
5
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.": - count it: our work is…

International
6
United States Naval Institute

Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.

—
7
Allen Institute

The mission of the allen institute is to unlock the complexities of bioscience and advance our knowledge to improve human health. using an open science, multi-scale, team-oriented approach. the allen institute focuses on accelerating…

Health
8
Institute for Defense Analyses

The institute for defense analyses is organized for the purpose of applied research. the institute for defense analyses provides independent and objective scientific and technological expertise to assist national security decision-makers…

Science & Tech
9
Center for Strategic and International Studies

The center for strategic and international studies (csis) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world's greatest challenges.

International
10
Earth & Space Research

Increase societal understanding of the earth system through scientific research and education.

Science & Tech
11
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
12
Open Imagery Network Inc

Empowering organizations and individuals globally with open ml and eo data, standards and tools to address the world's most critical international development challenges.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oceana Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. 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

10 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. 10 of the 13 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SKYTRUTH: $1,315,342 · EnvironmentSKYTRUTHOCEANA INC: $600,000 · EnvironmentOCEANA INCOCEAN RISK AND RESILIENCE ACTION ALLIANCE INC: $150,000 · EnvironmentOCEAN RISK AND RESILIENCE ACTION ALLIANCE INCUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA: $543,511 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN…REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $135,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERS…THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $74,760 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYPractical Solutions: $27,525 · Other+1 more: $11,000 · OtherIMPACT PHILANTHROPY GROUP: $444,461 · Public BenefitIMPACT PHILA…DUKE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PHYSICIANS INC: $377,913 · HealthDUKE UNIVE…The Pew Charitable Trusts: $220,000 · PhilanthropyTHE CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES: $93,500 · InternationalDUKE UNIVERSITY: $70,000 · Education
Environment$2,065,342Other$791,796Public Benefit$444,461Health$377,913Philanthropy$220,000International$93,500Education$70,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSKYTRUTH: $1,315,342 over 4y, 16% of budgetOCEANA INC: $600,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetIMPACT PHILANTHROPY GROUP: $444,461 over 4y, 13% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PHYSICIANS INC: $377,913 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetThe Pew Charitable Trusts: $220,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetOCEAN RISK AND RESILIENCE ACTION ALLIANCE INC: $150,000 over 3y, 7.9% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES: $93,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $74,760 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $70,000 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.

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.

Rockefeller Philanthr…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors IncNY14.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Global Fishing Watch Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Global Fishing Watch Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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
    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 13 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 Global Fishing Watch’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