· Public charity
The Building Conservation Trust
THE BUILDING CONSERVATION TRUST (bct) was created to provide vital funding for grassroots-driven projects that achieve one or more of five key objectives: restore degraded habitats; create new habitats; advance the science of coastal habitat restoration and marine fisheries conservation; foster habitat stewardship, and educate coastal…
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $40k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $400k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FRIENDS OF RGV REEF | $200,000 |
| GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION | $200,000 |
| TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-CORPUS CHRISTI | $40,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 99% 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 23% of The Building Conservation Trust’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. Read by recipient address, 93% of the giving stays in TX; read by stated purpose it is 84% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 +85% since the first grant, against +39% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- CCCOASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION7× · 2017–2023 · $2.3M · revenue +85%
PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS3× · 2018–2021 · $899k · revenue +6%- GBGalveston Bay Foundation Inc3× · 2018–2024 · $550k · revenue +167%
Funded once
- TETILLAMOOK ESTUARIES PARTNERSHIPgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $20k · revenue +39%
- PSPUGET SOUND RESTORATION FUNDgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $17k · revenue +50%
- RBREEF BALL FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2020 · $8k · revenue -40%
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.
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
To support coastal conservation association in carrying out the charitable and educational purpose for which it was organized and is operated, namely, promoting and advancing the preservation, conservation and protection of marine, plant…
Stci is organized for the betterment of the state of texas coastal ecosystem. this will be accopmlished through oyster shell recycling to help the texas coastal lands, waters, and wildlife.
Gfa works in partnership with and on behalf of the greater farallones and cordell bank national marine sanctuaries to preserve, monitor, research, educate about and enhance these invaluable marine resources.
Fish and wildlife conservation and outreach including public awareness. Fifteen public relations campaign on social media with over 7.5 million impressions. Twenty plus speaking engagements to a variety of conservation organizations…
The Coastal Prairie Conservancy (CPC) works to sustain a resilient Texas by preserving coastal prairies, wetlands, farms, and ranches to benefit people and wildlife forever. Continued on Schedule OCPC conserves land, restores and enhances…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas and the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Rio Grande Valley Reef Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 13 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 COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF INC ↗
- Who funds PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS ↗
- Who funds Galveston Bay Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds Ducks Unlimited Inc ↗
- Who funds COASTAL BEND BAYS & ESTUARIES PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds BILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds HARBOR WILDWATCH ↗
- Who funds TILLAMOOK ESTUARIES PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds PUGET SOUND RESTORATION FUND ↗
- Who funds REEF BALL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION ↗
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 Nature Conservancy · Coastal Conservation Association · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · 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 The Building Conservation Trust 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.
- Tillamook Estuaries Partnership — 100% 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.