· Public charity
Revive & Restore
REVIVE & RESTORE is the leading wildlife conservation organization promoting the incorporation of biotechnologies into standard conservation practice.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 13 grants below total $1,578,925 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $3,534,956 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,956,031 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–50k3 grants · $112k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $1.2M
- $250k+1 grant · $296k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| VIAGEN PETS & EQUINE | $296,196 |
| SECORE INTERNATIONAL | $205,390 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON | $192,007 |
| THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY | $183,951 |
| SAN DIEGO ZOO WILDLIFE ALLIANCE | $149,875 |
| MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY | $148,030 |
| BIOCHORIC INC | $121,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA | $85,312 |
| APPLIED ECOLOGICAL INSTITUTE | $79,825 |
| SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY | $46,000 |
| GLOBAL CORAL SOLUTIONS | $39,195 |
| THE UNKNOWN SCIENTIST INSTITUTE | $26,339 |
| CANOPY BIOSCIENCES LLC | $5,805 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 86% of your 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 — $1.8M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions, $1.8M to organizations and $6k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: GRANT FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH · GRANT EXTENSION WITH ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SCIENCE RESEARCH
Stated purpose: GRANT FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Stated purpose: GRANT FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH · STIPEND FOR RESEARCHER TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH PROJECT
Stated purpose: GRANT FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Stated purpose: GRANT FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
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 13% of Revive & Restore’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.
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 +25% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
16 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 6 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, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $546k 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
- UOUniversity of Miami3× · 2020–2024 · $2.2M · revenue +66%
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION2× · 2020–2023 · $1.6M · revenue +25%- OPONE PEOPLE ONE REEF4× · 2020–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +62% · 62% of their budget
Funded once
- UOUniversity of North Carolina at Wilmington - College of Health & Human Serv2× · 2023–2025 · $481k
- CICARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTONone grant, 2023 · $454k · revenue -17%
- TATEXAS A&M UNIVERSITYone grant, 2023 · $421k
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.
As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…
The museum's mission statement is: "to discover, interpret, and disseminate - through scientific research and education - knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe."
The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…
Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes. nyu's primary missions are education, research and scholarship, and patient care.
Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…
Ceu is committed to promoting the values of open society and self-reflective critical thinking. it aims at excellence in the mastery of established knowledge, courage to pursue the creation of new knowledge in the humanities, the social…
Western new england university, a comprehensive private institution with a tradition of excellence in teaching and scholarship and a commitment to service, awards undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in various departments from…
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…
Biu produces students who excel in the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business & the arts.
Case Western Reserve University is an independent, research-oriented university with broadly based strengths in health, including medicine, nursing and dentistry; in engineering; in the arts and sciences; and in law, management and social…
Clark university's mission is to educate undergraduate and graduate students to be imaginative and contributing citizens of the world, and to advance the frontiers of knowledge and understanding through rigorous scholarship and creative…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the most unlike its peers is One People One Reef. 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 59 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) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
22 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. 22 of the 49 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 THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds University of Miami ↗
- Who funds SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds ONE PEOPLE ONE REEF ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds APPLIED ECOLOGICAL INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds SECORE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds OIKONOS - ECOSYSTEM KNOWLEDGE ↗
- Who funds Cornell University ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds SAN ANTONIO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY AND ALUMNI ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
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 Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York · American Chemical Society · University of Miami · American Heart Association Inc · Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy Inc · Brown University · University of Southern California · President and Fellows of Harvard College · Folds of Honor Foundation · Johns Hopkins University · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Revive & Restore 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Gloucester Marine Genomics Institute Incorporated — 16% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- University of Miami — 5% 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.