Skip to content
The Building Conservation Trust at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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…

$440k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$200k
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$6.1MRecreation & Sports$5k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $40k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $400k
$200,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF RGV REEF$200,000
GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION$200,000
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-CORPUS CHRISTI$40,000
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 18%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%NEW YORK HARBOR FOUNDATION: $70k → 17%GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION: $200k → 14%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE: $759k → 14%COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $640k → 16%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-CORPUS CHRISTI: $340k → 17%FRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF: $262k → 27%CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION: $5k → 14%TILLAMOOK ESTUARIES PARTNERSHIP: $20k → 12%DUCKS UNLIMITED: $250k → 17%REEF BALL FOUNDATION: $8k → 27%HARBOR WILDWATCH: $15k → 9%PUGET SOUNDS RESTORATION FUND: $17k → 10%NEW YORK HARBOR FOUNDATION: $15k → 17%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE: $100k → 14%COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $466k → 16%TEXAS A&M CORPUS CHRISTI: $120k → 17%FRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF: $150k → 27%DUCKS UNLIMITED: $16k → 14%HARBOR WILDWATCH: $12k → 9%TEXS PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $40k → 14%COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $413k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $75k → 17%FRIENDS OF RGV REEF: $200k → 27%COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $250k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $60k → 17%FRIENDS OF RGV REEF: $400k → 27%COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $230k → 16%TEXAS A&M CORPUS CHRISTI: $60k → 17%COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $175k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE - TAMUCC: $50k → 17%COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $148k → 16%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-CORPUS CHRISTI: $40k → 17%GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION: $220k → 16%COASTAL BENDS BAYS AND ESTUARIE PROGRAM: $70k → 17%GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION: $130k → 16%COASTAL BENDS BAYS AND ESTUARIE PROGRAM: $60k → 17%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.
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 23% of The Building Conservation Trust’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 93% of the giving stays in TX; by stated purpose, 84%.

The Building Conservation Trustlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$6.0M · 9 repeat orgs$50k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +85% since the first grant, against +50% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
4

Total granted

$6.0M
$50k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+85%
+50%

Still filing today

89%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EnvironmentAnimalsEducationOther
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

  • CC
    COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
    7× · 2017–2023 · $2.3M · revenue +85%
  • PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
    3× · 2018–2021 · $899k · revenue +6%
  • GB
    Galveston Bay Foundation Inc
    3× · 2018–2024 · $550k · revenue +167%

Funded once

  • TE
    TILLAMOOK ESTUARIES PARTNERSHIPgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $20k · revenue +123%
  • PS
    PUGET SOUND RESTORATION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $17k · revenue +50%
  • RB
    REEF BALL FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2020 · $8k · revenue -29%
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
Clean Reefs
Environment
2
California Wildlife Foundation

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

Animals
3
Wetlands Foundation
Environment
4
The Coral Reef and Marine Science Foundation Inc C/O James Bildner
—
5
Cca Texas Fund

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…

Environment
6
South Texas Coastal Initiative

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.

Environment
7
Greater Farallones Association

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.

Animals
8
Texas Foundation for Conservation

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…

Animals
9
Coastwatch Wildlife Society
Science & Tech
10
Gulf Fishery Research Foundation
Environment
11
Coral Conservancy
—
12
Coastal Prairie Conservancy

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…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas; 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.
05the grantee network

12 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. 12 of the 13 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
10/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $2,321,727 · EnvironmentCOASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATIONPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $899,000 · EnvironmentPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXASGalveston Bay Foundation Inc: $550,000 · EnvironmentGalveston Bay Foundation IncDucks Unlimited Inc: $265,500 · EnvironmentDucks Unlimited Inc+4 more: $194,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF INC: $1,012,200 · AnimalsFRIENDS OF THE RIO…+1 more: $7,600 · AnimalsTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-CORPUS CHRISTI: $745,000 · OtherTEXAS A&M UNI…+1 more: $5,000 · OtherBILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC: $84,800 · Education
Environment$4,230,227Animals$1,019,800Other$750,000Education$84,800

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 budgetCOASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $2,321,727 over 7y, 3.6% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF INC: $1,012,200 over 4y, 82% of budgetPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $899,000 over 3y, 7.4% of budgetGalveston Bay Foundation Inc: $550,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc: $265,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOASTAL BEND BAYS & ESTUARIES PROGRAM INC: $130,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetBILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC: $84,800 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetHARBOR WILDWATCH: $27,000 over 2y, 6.0% of budgetTILLAMOOK ESTUARIES PARTNERSHIP: $20,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetPUGET SOUND RESTORATION FUND: $17,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetREEF BALL FOUNDATION INC: $7,600 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

The Nature ConservancyCoastal Conservation …National Fish and Wil…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Nature ConservancyVA15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Nature Conservancy · Coastal Conservation Association · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · 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 The Building Conservation Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Building Conservation Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Tillamook Estuaries Partnership: 100% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
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 13 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 Building Conservation’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