Skip to content
Monarch Joint Venture at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Monarch Joint Venture

To protect monarchs and their migration by collaborating with partners to deliver habitat conservation, education, and science across the united states.

$224k
Granted FY2023
11
Grants FY2023
7
States reached
$39k
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, FY2022 to 2023.

Environment$227kAnimals$97kEducation$17kArts & Culture$9k
02FY2023 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k3 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $203k
$21,500
Median grant
7
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION$39,178
WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES (WAFWA)WASHINGTON STATE$31,398
CALIFORNIA ASSOCATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (CARCD)$27,884
PHEASANTSQUAIL FOREVER$25,207
METRO BLOOMS$23,555
POLLINATOR PROTECTION FUND OF LAGUNA BEACH$21,500
XERCES SOCIETY FOR INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION$20,000
USA-NATIONAL PHENOLOGY NETWORK UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA$14,074
POLLLINATOR PARTNERSHIP$6,817
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN ARBORETUM$6,668
CIBOLO CENTER FOR CONSERVATION$6,036
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 (FY22–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%USA-NATIONAL PHENOLOGY NETWORK UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $14k → 15%METRO BLOOMS: $24k → 11%PHEASANTSQUAIL FOREVER: $25k → 14%POLLINATOR PROTECTION FUND OF LAGUNA BEACH: $22k → 10%Pollinator Posse: $6k → 10%POLLLINATOR PARTNERSHIP: $7k → 10%Pacific Grove Museum Natl History: $9k → 12%CALIFORNIA ASSOCATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (CARCD): $28k → 12%CIBOLO CENTER FOR CONSERVATION: $6k → 7%Native Plant Society of Texas: $9k → 10%Univ of Wisc Madison Arboretum: $8k → 10%XERCES SOCIETY FOR INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION: $20k → 12%Metro Blooms: $14k → 11%Pheasants Forever: $15k → 14%Pollinator Protection Fnd Laguna: $15k → 10%California Assoc of Resource Cons: $18k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN ARBORETUM: $7k → 10%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

WA
ID
MN
WI
OR
CA
UT
AZ
TX
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.

51%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$175k · 5 repeat orgs$166k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
4

Total granted

$175k
$49k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+35%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $118k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23
EnvironmentAnimalsEducationArts & CultureRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • CA
    CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
    2× · 2022–2023 · $46k · revenue +377%
  • PF
    PHEASANTS FOREVER INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +36%
  • MB
    METRO BLOOMS
    3× · 2022–2024 · $38k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • PA
    Project Apis M 20 Incgraduated
    2× · 2022–2024 · $24k · revenue +150%
  • MF
    MUSEUM FOUNDATION OF PACIFIC GROVE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $9k · revenue +26%
  • WS
    WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2022 · $9k
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
California Institute for Biodiversity

Create and publish educational materials, conduct professional development, promote awareness, and sponsor research on the spectacular biological diversity of the State of CA.

Education
2
San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory

The San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory is dedicated to promote sustainability in the Bay Area and beyond by engaging communities in avian science, habitat restoration, and education.

Environment
3
Bay Nature Institute dba Bay Nature Bay Nature Magazine

Bay Nature connects the people of the San Francisco Bay Area to our natural world and motivates people to solve problems with nature in mind. Our vision is that all people have a close relationship with theirnatural world.

Environment
4
Houston Botanic Garden

To enrich life through discovery, education, and the conservation of plants and the natural environment.

Environment
5
San Diego Habitat Conservancy

Acquire, manage and protect land in perpetuity that supports sensitive habitats and species, and to educate and inspire people and communities as stewards and advocates of their natural environment.

Arts & Culture
6
Washington Native Plant Society

To promote the appreciation and conservation of Washington's native plants and their habitats through study, education, and advocacy.

Environment
7
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
8
California Wildlife Foundation

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

Animals
9
Defenders of Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

Animals
10
Nature Collective

Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…

Environment
11
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin

To protect and sustain the unique lands, waters, and biodiversity of west marin.

Environment
12
Arlington Garden in Pasadena

Arlington Garden is a climate-appropriate, habitat garden offering learning, inspiration, and enjoyment for all.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wild Ones Natural Landscapers Ltd; the most unlike its peers is California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 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

17 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
10/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PHEASANTS FOREVER INC: $40,000 · OtherPHEASANTS FOREVER INCTHE SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION INC: $39,178 · OtherTHE SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION INCUNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $14,074 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ARIZONAWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY: $9,150 · OtherWASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITYOakland- East Bay Garden Center Inc: $6,413 · OtherOakland- East Bay Garden Center IncCALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $45,702 · EnvironmentCALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE…METRO BLOOMS: $37,724 · EnvironmentMETRO BLOOMSNative Plant Society of Texas: $9,026 · EnvironmentNative Plant Society of TexasPollinator Partnership: $6,817 · EnvironmentPollinator PartnershipFRIENDS OF CIBOLO WILDERNESS: $6,036 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF CIBOLO WILDERNESSPOLLINATOR PROTECTION FUND: $36,764 · AnimalsPOLLINATOR PROTECTION FUNDProject Apis M 20 Inc: $23,785 · AnimalsProject Apis M 20 IncXERCES SOCIETY INC: $20,000 · AnimalsXERCES SOCIETY INCWESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES: $31,398 · Recreation & SportsWESTERN AS…UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $14,826 · EducationMUSEUM FOUNDATION OF PACIFIC GROVE INC: $9,170 · Arts & Culture
Other$108,815Environment$105,305Animals$80,549Recreation & Sports$31,398Education$14,826Arts & Culture$9,170

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 budgetCALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $45,702 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetPHEASANTS FOREVER INC: $40,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION INC: $39,178 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetMETRO BLOOMS: $37,724 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetWESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES: $31,398 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetProject Apis M 20 Inc: $23,785 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetXERCES SOCIETY INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $14,826 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMUSEUM FOUNDATION OF PACIFIC GROVE INC: $9,170 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetNative Plant Society of Texas: $9,026 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetPollinator Partnership: $6,817 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOakland- East Bay Garden Center Inc: $6,413 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF CIBOLO WILDERNESS: $6,036 over 2y, 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.

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 Wil…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC18.6× affinity7 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Monarch Joint Venture funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Monarch Joint Venture. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 22%
  • Xerces Society Inc: 22% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report 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 16 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $317k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Monarch Joint Venture’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