· Private foundation
Seaworld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 53% of SEAWORLD & BUSCH GARDENS CONSERVATION FUND’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k6 grants · $123k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $665k
- $250k+3 grants · $1.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTION | $500,000 |
| OCEARCH | $349,730 |
| WORLD VETS | $300,000 |
| AFRICAN MARINE MAMMEL CONSEREVATION | $180,000 |
| THE MARINE MAMMEL CENTER | $160,000 |
| AMPA FRIENDS OF THE MANATEE ASSOCIA | $75,000 |
| WILDERNESS FOUNDATION AFRICA | $50,000 |
| UGANDA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| ASOCIATION PANAMERICANA PARA LA CON | $50,000 |
| SANCCOB SO AFRICAN FOUNDATION FOR T | $50,000 |
| ICAS WILD ANIMAL CONSSEREVATION INS | $50,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII | $30,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $28,000 |
| THE BIG CAT SANCTUARY | $20,000 |
| TUSK TRUST | $20,000 |
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.
Your US giving — 70% of grant dollars ($6.1M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 30% that went abroad ($2.6M) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 44% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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
Beyond the US — 30% of all-years giving ($2.6M)
22 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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 +98% since the first grant, against +60% for the ones you funded once.
56 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 44 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 53% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $905k 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
- WHWOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION4× · 2017–2022 · $905k · revenue +68%
- WVWORLD VETS2× · 2023–2024 · $650k · revenue +82% · 38% of their budget
- TMTHE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER3× · 2019–2024 · $375k · revenue +50%
Funded once
- RTRising Tideone grant, 2021 · $121k
- UOUniversity of Florida Board of Trusone grant, 2019 · $100k
- LLLiving Lands Watersone grant, 2017 · $50k
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The wildlife conservation society (wcs) saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature.
Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.
Marine Conservation
Protecting the world's remaining primates by monitoring and exposing illegal trade, supporting a worldwide network of overseas sanctuaries and ngo's, publicising the plight of abused primates, and operating a sanctuary for resued gibbons.
Orca conservancy is working on behalf of orcinus orca, the killer whale, and protecting the wild places on which it depends.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Conservation Network Inc and the most unlike its peers is Blue World Research Institute Inc. 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 29 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) — 0% 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.
57 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. 57 of the 187 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 WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds WORLD VETS ↗
- Who funds THE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds OCEARCH ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds HUBBS-SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds RESTORE AMERICA'S ESTUARIES ↗
- Who funds Wild Earth Allies Inc ↗
- Who funds PAN AFRICAN SANCTUARY ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA WOLF CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE CORAL RESTORATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc ↗
- Who funds WHITE OAK CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds POLAR BEARS INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds Owl's Nest Sanctuary for Wildlife Inc ↗
- Who funds TEXAS MARINE MAMMAL STRANDING NETWORK ↗
- Who funds LIVING LANDS & WATERS ↗
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: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · National Geographic Society · The Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation · Columbus Zoological Park Association · American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Inc · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Globalgiving Foundation Inc · Arcus Foundation · Builders Vision Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Shell USA Company 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 Seaworld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund 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.
- Blue World Research Institute Inc — 85% of income from government
- Pan African Sanctuary Alliance Inc — 68% of income from government
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution — 63% of income from government
- Gunung Palung Orangutan Conservation Program Inc — 27% of income from government
- Center for Coastal Studies Inc — 26% of income from government
- The Coral Restoration Foundation Inc — 16% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Seaworld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund?
Find your warmest path to Seaworld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.