Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Southeastern Assoc of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Inc

The organization's mission is to provide a forum for state and territorial fish and wildlife agencies to share ideas and information, pool resources, and initiate actions to benefit the management and conservation of fish and wildlife resources in the southeast.

$867k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$300k
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 97% of SOUTHEASTERN ASSOC OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES INC’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.

02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $83k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $476k
  • $250k+1 grant · $300k
$70,070
Median grant
8
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MGH INC$300,000
CJ AQUATIC RESTORATION LLC$148,000
MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION$121,210
HABERSHAM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS$86,981
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY$70,070
BLUE ION LLC$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE$37,833
SOUTHWICK ASSOCIATES INC$30,600
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES$15,000
FUR TAKERS OF AMERICA$7,500
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 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 88% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%The Nature Conservancy: $41k → 16%TEXAS A AND M AGRILIFE RESEARCH: $36k → 22%SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY: $37k → 22%BLUE ION LLC: $50k → 12%CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: $172k → 16%ERESOURCES LLC: $34k → 16%KIMBERLY BISHOP FARMS INC: $32k → 18%USDA FOREST SERVICE: $100k → 22%ALABAMA DEPT OF CONSERVATION & NATURAL RESOURCES: $85k → 18%DINKINS BIOLOGY CONSULTING LLC: $39k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE: $38k → 12%NASHVILLE ZOO INC: $29k → 14%CAMPBELL COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT: $211k → 20%KRIS BASS ENGINEERING PLLC: $50k → 8%EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY: $43k → 20%GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $33k → 13%HABERSHAM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: $87k → 14%FLINT RIVER SOIL & WATER CONS DISTRICT: $194k → 23%WEST LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: $31k → 15%MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $121k → 8%MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $115k → 14%CJ AQUATIC RESTORATION LLC: $148k → 14%MISSISSIPPI DEPT OF WILDLIFE FISHERIES PARKS: $26k → 23%RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: $175k → 11%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY: $41k → 21%BOLT STRATEGIES LLC: $259k → 9%Wildlife Management Institute: $26k → 9%LOUISIANA DEPT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES: $37k → 19%MGH INC: $300k → 11%CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: $146k → 16%CAMPBELL COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT: $53k → 20%GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $33k → 13%HABERSHAM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: $57k → 14%FLINT RIVER SOIL & WATER CONS DISTRICT: $184k → 23%MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $110k → 14%VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY: $39k → 21%LOUISIANA DEPT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES: $34k → 19%CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: $71k → 16%FLINT RIVER SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $165k → 23%MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $100k → 14%CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: $70k → 16%Max McGraw Wildlife Foundatio: $100k → 14%CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: $53k → 16%MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $99k → 14%Clemson University: $39k → 16%TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $34k → 14%MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $70k → 14%MAX MCGRAW WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $60k → 14%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.

Which US states your grants reach

VT
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
WY
NJ
UT
MO
WV
VA
MD
TN
NC
SC
DC
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL

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.

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.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$4.9M · 31 repeat orgs$1.8M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +51% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.

31 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 24 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

31
27

Total granted

$4.9M
$1.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+51%
+7%

Still filing today

10%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $456k 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
EducationAnimalsEnvironmentOther

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

  • MM
    Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation
    7× · 2018–2024 · $675k · revenue +100%
  • NZ
    NASHVILLE ZOO INC
    3× · 2018–2021 · $46k · revenue +51%
  • LU
    LEE UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2018–2019 · $32k · revenue +9%

Funded once

  • BS
    BOLT STRATEGIES LLC
    one grant, 2022 · $259k
  • RM
    RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT
    one grant, 2023 · $175k
  • FR
    FLINT RIVER SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
    one grant, 2023 · $165k

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
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
2
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
3
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
4
National Association of Clean Water Agencies

Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.

5
American Humane Association

Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…

Animals
6
Panthera Corporation

Panthera's mission is the conservation of the world's 40 wild cat species, many of which are endangered or threatened. panthera develops, implements and oversees wild cat conservation strategies on a global scale.

Animals
7
The Wildlife Society

The wildlife society's mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through science-based management and conservation.

Animals
8
Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society

The cheyenne mountain zoological society owns and operates the cheyenne mountain zoo. a leader in conservation, captive breeding and animal care, the zoo connects people with wildlife and wild places through experiences that inspire…

Animals
9
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

To sustain, restore, and enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats.

Animals
10
Wetlands America Trust Inc

Wetlands america trust, inc. is a nonprofit organization formed in 1985 to expand ducks unlimited, inc's mission to provide leadership in the protection of the natural balance of wetlands ecosystems ensuring the future viability of…

Environment
11
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
12
America's Wildlife Association for Resource Education

To conduct activities designed to provide current information to the public relating to scientific management of the fish and wildlife resources of north america; to provide the public professional insight concerning issues of current…

Animals

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Clemson University Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation. 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

8 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. 8 of the 62 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SVCS — $782,968 · OtherFLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SVCSMax McGraw Wildlife Foundation — $675,210 · OtherMax McGraw Wildlife FoundationCLEMSON UNIVERSITY — $590,545 · OtherCLEMSON UNIVERSITYFLINT RIVER SOIL & WATER CONS DISTRICT — $397,082 · OtherFLINT RIVER SOIL & WATER CONS DISTRICTBLUE ION LLC — $385,000 · OtherBLUE ION LLCMGH INC — $300,000 · OtherCAMPBELL COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT — $264,400 · OtherBOLT STRATEGIES LLC — $259,255 · OtherSOUTHWICK ASSOCIATES INC — $232,640 · Other+50 more — $2,686,752 · Other+50 moreCLEMSON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION — $122,500 · EducationNASHVILLE ZOO INC — $45,794 · AnimalsAMERICAN RIVERS INC — $9,000 · Environment
Other$6,573,852Education$122,500Animals$45,794Environment$9,000

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 budgetMax McGraw Wildlife Foundation — $675,210 over 7y, 1.5% of budgetCLEMSON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION — $122,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNASHVILLE ZOO INC — $45,794 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $41,173 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLEE UNIVERSITY — $31,903 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INC — $26,279 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC — $9,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFUR TAKERS OF AMERICA — $7,500 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.

  • Who funds Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation
  • Who funds CLEMSON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
  • Who funds NASHVILLE ZOO INC
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.

National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC13.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife 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 Southeastern Assoc of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Inc 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 100%
  • Wildlife Management Institute Inc100% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY2025

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 62 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