Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Seacology

Seacology protects the threatened species and habitats of the worlds islands by working directly with local people to both conserve their natural resources and improve their quality of life.

$1.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$27k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

Environment$255kEducation$31kAnimals$13k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 3 grants below total $43,360 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,027,648 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $984,288 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $27k
$9,650
Median grant
3
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GREEN EMPOWERMENT$26,710
MAD DOG INITIATIVE$9,650
Reef Renewal Fdn Curacao$7,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 64% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Reef Renewal Fdn Curacao: $7k → 9%MAD DOG INITIATIVE: $21k → 15%COCODRILO CO OCEAN DOCTOR: $19k → 14%LEMUR CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $13k → 10%BONAIRE CO MONT BOTANICAL C: $33k → 15%GREEN EMPOWERMENT: $28k → 12%WESTCOTT BAY 2 CO UNIV WASH: $37k → 9%WESTCOTT BAY CO SAN JUAN ISL: $17k → 10%GUANAJA ISL CO ONE EARTH: $10k → 9%MAD DOG INITIATIVE: $10k → 15%GREEN EMPOWERMENT: $27k → 12%UNIVERISITY OF WASHINGTON: $23k → 9%LONG LIAM COMM CO GREEN EMP: $18k → 12%WESTCOTT BAY 2 CO UNIV WASH: $12k → 9%LONG LIAM COMM CO GREEN EMP: $17k → 12%LONG LIAM COMM CO GREEN EMP: $8k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

Grants abroad, by region — $982k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 7 regions, $972k to organizations and $10k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Carib/cen Amer.$340k · 35% · 15 grants

Stated purpose: BEEKEEPER ASSIST. · ECOSYSTEM PROTECT. · EDUC. CAMPAIGN

East Asia and the Pacific$302k · 31% · 17 grants

Stated purpose: AIRSTRIP BUILDING · AQUAPONICS EQUIP. · BATHROOM/SHOWERS

Sub-Saharan Africa$116k · 12% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: CONSER. INFO CTR. · GEAR FOR PATROLS · SECONDARY SCHOOL

South Asia$101k · 10% · 4 grants · 1 person

Stated purpose: CONSERV. RESOURCES · ECOTOURISM CTR. · EDUC. SIGNS

South America$54k · 5% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: CLEAN WATER · COMM. HALL · ECOTOURISM TRAINING

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$42k · 4% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: LIVELIHOOD IMPROVE. · SEAGRASS REPLANTING

North America (Canada and Mexico)$27k · 3% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: DESALINATION PLANT · LIVELIHOOD IMPROVE. · TOILET REPAIR

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$199k · 3 repeat orgs$99k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +50% since the first grant, against -7% for the ones you funded once.

3 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
5

Total granted

$199k
$92k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
-7%

Still filing today

100%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentPhilanthropyEducationScience & TechOther

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

  • GE
    GREEN EMPOWERMENT
    5× · 2018–2024 · $97k · revenue +162%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
    3× · 2021–2023 · $71k · revenue +11%
  • MD
    Mad Dog Initiative
    2× · 2023–2024 · $31k

Funded once

  • MB
    MONTGOMERY BOTANICAL CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $33k · revenue +78%
  • OD
    OCEAN DOCTOR INC
    one grant, 2017 · $19k
  • TS
    THE SAN JUAN PRESERVATION TRUST
    one grant, 2020 · $17k · revenue -71%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
2
The Coral Reef and Marine Science Foundation Inc C/O James Bildner
3
Fundacion Cordillera Tropical

Conservation of natural resources

International
4
Clean Reefs
Environment
5
Schmidt Ocean Institute
Science & Tech
6
Endangered Species International

Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.

Animals
7
Seaworld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund
Environment
8
Galapagos Whale Shark Project
9
Sociedad Ambiente Marino

Environmental and water protection and education

Education
10
One Planet Research Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Natura International Inc

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…

Public Benefit
12
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is One Earth Conservation and the most unlike its peers is Montgomery Botanical Center. 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

9 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

GREEN EMPOWERMENT — $97,225 · PhilanthropyGREEN EMPOWERMENTUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION — $71,480 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FO…MONTGOMERY BOTANICAL CENTER — $32,500 · OtherMONTGOMERY BOTANICAL CE…Mad Dog Initiative — $30,690 · OtherMad Dog InitiativeOCEAN DOCTOR INC — $19,219 · EnvironmentOCEAN DOCTOR INCTHE SAN JUAN PRESERVATION TRUST — $17,240 · EnvironmentTHE SAN JUAN PRESERV…ONE EARTH CONSERVATION — $10,432 · EnvironmentONE EARTH CONSERVATI…REEF RENEWAL FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL — $7,000 · EnvironmentREEF RENEWAL FOUNDAT…Lemur Conservation Foundation Inc — $13,032 · Science & Tech
Philanthropy$97,225Education$71,480Other$63,190Environment$53,891Science & Tech$13,032

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetGREEN EMPOWERMENT — $97,225 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION — $71,480 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMONTGOMERY BOTANICAL CENTER — $32,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetMad Dog Initiative — $30,690 over 2y, 21% of budgetOCEAN DOCTOR INC — $19,219 over 1y, 8.1% of budgetTHE SAN JUAN PRESERVATION TRUST — $17,240 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLemur Conservation Foundation Inc — $13,032 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetONE EARTH CONSERVATION — $10,432 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetREEF RENEWAL FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL — $7,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budget
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.

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.

Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA7.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Seacology 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
2021222324
no gov · 30%2%6%14%25%your share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 0%
  • Montgomery Botanical Center0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY2024

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 9 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph