Skip to content
Prince William Sound Science & Technology Institute at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Prince William Sound Science & Technology Institute

The Prince William Sound Science and Technology Institute (d.b.a.

$605k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$125k
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$1.5MEducation$410kScience & Tech$348kAnimals$200kFood & Nutrition$120kPublic Safety & Disaster$115kHealth$40kReligion$35kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $549,640, the rows itemized in this filing. The $605,052 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $55,412 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $100k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $444k
$65,432
Median grant
8
States reached
$29M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Water Mapping LLC$125,000
Owens Coastal Consultants$114,000
Univ of New Hampshire$69,883
Fjord & Fish Sciences$69,363
University of Alaska Fairbank$65,432
Michigan Technological Univer$40,754
Bodkin Design & Engineering L$33,829
DF Dickins Associates LLC$25,884
University of New Orleans$5,495
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 54% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%Moran Environmental Recovery: $100k → 7%Bodkin Design & Engineering L: $34k → 8%Farallon Institute: $66k → 8%DF Dickins Associates LLC: $26k → 12%Tactical Electronics: $95k → 15%Resource Planning Inc: $106k → 16%Water Mapping LLC: $125k → 16%Michigan Technological Univer: $62k → 14%Oregon State University: $97k → 18%University of Washington: $32k → 9%Owens Coastal Consultants: $114k → 10%Safeguard Marine: $150k → 7%University of Alaska Fairbank: $114k → 8%AXIOM: $122k → 10%Nuka Research & Planning Grp: $39k → 11%University of Illinois: $29k → 19%New Jersey Institute of Tech: $25k → 16%University of New Orleans: $47k → 23%Univ of New Hampshire: $70k → 9%Farallon Institute: $45k → 8%Resource Planning Inc: $33k → 16%Michigan Technological Univer: $41k → 14%Oregon State University: $40k → 18%University of Washington: $30k → 9%Owens Coastal Consultants Ltd: $65k → 10%Safeguard Marine: $80k → 7%University of Alaska Fairbanks: $114k → 8%Fjord & Fish Sciences: $69k → 10%Nuka Research & Planning Grp: $38k → 11%University of Illinois: $25k → 19%University of New Orleans: $31k → 23%Univ of New Hampshire: $47k → 9%Owens Coastal Consultants Ltd: $60k → 10%University of Alaska Fairbank: $65k → 8%University of Alaska Fairbank: $64k → 8%North Pacific Research Board: $100k → 10%University of Alaska Fairbank: $59k → 8%North Pacific Research Board: $50k → 10%University of Alaska Fairbank: $52k → 8%North Pacific Research Board: $50k → 10%University of Alaska Fairbank: $41k → 8%North Pacific Reasearch Board: $50k → 10%University of Alaska Fairbank: $31k → 8%University of Alaska Fairbank: $31k → 8%University of Alaska Fairbank: $29k → 8%University of Alaska Fairbank: $26k → 8%University of Alaska Fairbanks: $26k → 8%University of Alaska Fairbank: $23k → 8%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

AK
NH
WA
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
WY
NJ
CA
MO
MD
NM
SC
OK
LA
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 5% of Prince William Sound Science & Technology Institute’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Prince William Sound Science & Technology Institutelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.8M · 17 repeat orgs$630k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +49% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
15

Total granted

$2.8M
$571k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
+26%

Still filing today

12%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationOther
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
    9× · 2017–2025 · $783k
  • NP
    North Pacific Research Board
    3× · 2017–2024 · $250k
  • OC
    Owens Coastal Consultants Ltd
    2× · 2017–2025 · $238k

Funded once

  • AD
    AXIOM DATA SCIENCES LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $122k
  • ME
    Moran Environmental Recovery
    one grant, 2017 · $100k
  • TE
    Tactical Electronics
    one grant, 2019 · $95k
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
05the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 34 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
3/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA: $782,840 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ALASKANorth Pacific Research Board: $250,000 · OtherNorth Pacific Research BoardOwens Coastal Consultants Ltd: $238,007 · OtherOwens Coastal Consultants LtdSafeguard Marine: $229,570 · OtherSafeguard MarineOREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $145,480 · OtherResource Planning Inc: $138,312 · OtherWATER MAPPING LLC: $138,000 · OtherAXIOM DATA SCIENCES LLC: $121,683 · OtherUNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: $117,320 · OtherNuka Research & Planning Grp: $114,149 · OtherMichigan Tech University: $108,798 · Other+21 more: $875,538 · Other+21 moreFARALLON INSTITUTE: $110,841 · EnvironmentJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $23,000 · Education
Other$3,259,697Environment$110,841Education$23,000

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 budgetFARALLON INSTITUTE: $110,841 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetPrince William Sound Science & Technology Institute: $32,820 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $23,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAlaska Chadux Network: $18,197 over 1y, 0.3% 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 FARALLON INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds Prince William Sound Science & Technology Institute ↗
  • Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Alaska Chadux Network ↗

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 Chemical Soc…Johns Hopkins Univers…
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC21.6× affinity9 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · American Chemical Society · Johns Hopkins University

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 Prince William Sound Science & Technology Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Prince William Sound Science & Technology Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
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 34 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Prince William Sound Science & Technology Institute’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