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

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $43,360, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,027,648 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $984,288 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

  • 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

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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 64% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its 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
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: $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

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.

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against -7% for those 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
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

  • GE
    GREEN EMPOWERMENT
    5× · 2018–2024 · $97k · revenue +169%
  • 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%
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
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
—
2
The Coral Reef and Marine Science Foundation Inc C/O James Bildner
—
3
Clean Reefs
Environment
4
Schmidt Ocean Institute
Science & Tech
5
Fundacion Cordillera Tropical

Conservation of natural resources

International
6
Galapagos Whale Shark Project
—
7
One Planet Research Foundation
Philanthropy
8
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
9
Sociedad Ambiente Marino

Environmental and water protection and education

Education
10
Seaworld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund
Environment
11
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
12
Global Foundation for Oceanographic & Atmospheric Research Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is One Earth Conservation; 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 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)
8/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 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 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
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.

Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 30%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Montgomery Botanical Center: 0% 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, FY20–24
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 9 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 Seacology’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