National Geographic Society Explorer Grant — Historical Reference: Level I Model

National Geographic Society Explorer Grant — Historical Reference: Level I Model

The National Geographic Society’s former Level I Explorer Grant is a historical funding route, not an open application. The Society’s last identifiable Level I call was Developing Future Ocean Stewards, a specific RFP for community-based ocean literacy and education. That call closed on June 24, 2026. The Society’s current Grants and Investments page now describes its program as a set of distinct, time-bound RFPs. It labels Level I and Level II as historical funding levels and does not list a successor general Level I round.

This record preserves the closed call’s deadline and useful terms so applicants can understand what the Level I label meant in that instance. It does not invite applications to the old call. The Society’s current opportunity page is the reliable place to see which separate RFPs are open now. Their focus, amount, eligibility, and materials vary, and the old Level I model cannot be treated as a standing application window.

Status at a glance

The last Level I call addressed a focused education challenge. It sought community-based projects that help learners build an emotional relationship with the ocean and develop an identity connected to ocean stewardship. It emphasized immersive learning, locally meaningful education, and reducing social, cultural, psychological, and physical barriers that keep people away from ocean experiences and conservation conversations. This call was a targeted RFP, not a return to a broad, unrestricted Explorer Grant application.

How the funding model changed

The Society explains that its grants were historically organized around an open-call model that supported broad exploration, research, conservation, storytelling, and technology work. It has since moved to specific Requests for Proposals designed around defined environmental, cultural, and scientific priorities. It describes Level I and Level II as historical funding levels and says funding amounts and project budgets are now tailored to the parameters of each active opportunity.

That change affects how an applicant should interpret this archive. There is no current generic Level I application that can be submitted whenever a project is ready. A project must fit an RFP that is actually open, and that RFP’s own instructions control the proposal. Calls differ in their subject, methods, geography, applicant experience, budget ceiling, project length, outputs, and required attachments. A previous amount or eligibility rule should never be carried over automatically to another Society call.

The last identified Level I opportunity does show how a lower-tier award functioned in one particular RFP. Developing Future Ocean Stewards addressed ocean literacy through community-centered education. It invited project leaders to build learning experiences that could strengthen knowledge, skills, attitudes, and a reciprocal relationship with the ocean. Proposals could pilot or expand educational approaches, or study whether an approach helped learners connect with and care for aquatic environments. Community co-design and local relevance were central to the call’s description.

The Society’s broader mission includes science, conservation, storytelling, education, and technology aligned with focus areas such as Ocean, Land, Wildlife, Human Histories and Cultures, Planetary Health, and Space. Those themes explain the Society’s scope, but they do not imply that every type of project is eligible under every RFP. The specific opening determines what kinds of projects and applicants it will consider.

The closed Developing Future Ocean Stewards call

The call’s central question was how people and communities can build a meaningful connection to the ocean and act as stewards. Its framing treated ocean literacy as more than the transfer of facts. It emphasized emotional connection, a sense of ocean identity, and opportunities for learners to understand how water systems connect. The call particularly encouraged work that reached people often excluded from conservation dialogue and that responded to local economic, cultural, psychological, and physical conditions.

The RFP welcomed transdisciplinary project design. Education could be combined with natural or social science, storytelling, local knowledge, or ocean-focused design when those methods supported the learning purpose. Examples of suitable approaches included community-based immersive learning, locally grounded curriculum or experiences, and evaluation of educational innovations. A project still needed a clear education rationale and a defined relationship to the Ocean focus area; adding ocean imagery or a conservation message alone would not establish fit.

The call also stressed that project design should reflect the people and place involved. Its eligibility language asked for leadership by someone with a strong connection to, or track record in, the community where the work would occur, or by a member of that community. Proposals were expected to be designed with the community or otherwise reflect its needs, and to tailor ocean literacy to local cultural and geographic realities. A credible plan would explain who shaped the work, how participants would take part, and how learning activities fit local circumstances.

The call had two award levels. Level I offered up to US$20,000 and was designed for a smaller-scale or earlier-career project leader who was not already a National Geographic Explorer. Level II offered up to US$100,000; the RFP described typical Level II budgets in a lower range than that maximum. A person who had previously received a National Geographic Society grant and was already an Explorer could apply only to Level II. These were terms of this particular ocean education RFP, not current standard Society grant amounts.

Eligibility and project leadership in the archived call

Applicants had to be individuals aged 18 or older and demonstrate relevant education experience. The applicant needed to serve as the project leader and fit the call’s focus requirements: Education as the primary discipline and Ocean as the primary focus area. Current National Geographic Society staff were not eligible under the call. Organizations could be collaborators or an applicant’s affiliation, but the proposal was made by an individual responsible for the work.

Project leadership was expected to be rooted in the community where activities would take place. Applicants needed to show a strong local connection or existing record of work there, or to be members of that community. The project should be designed with the community or respond directly to its needs. In practical terms, a proposal should have explained how local participants informed the question, what relationships already existed, how learning activities would be accessible, and how the project would respond to the community’s languages, priorities, and experience.

The Level I and Level II distinction also affected prior Society grant recipients. The call reserved Level I for applicants who were not current National Geographic Explorers, while an existing Explorer could seek Level II. This is separate from the Society’s current general eligibility page, which gives broad criteria for grant seekers and notes that each RFP adds its own rules. Applicants considering a different active call should not assume the archived call’s tier limitations apply to it.

What the historical application required

Applications to the closed call were submitted through the National Geographic Funding Portal. The Society’s general process now likewise requires applicants to select a specific open RFP, create or use a Funding Portal account, complete that RFP’s online application, and submit before its stated deadline. General applications sent by email or mail are not accepted. Since this archived ocean call is closed, its portal link should not be treated as an active way to apply.

For the archived RFP, the proposal needed to present an education project tied to the Ocean focus area, relevant experience, and a clear plan for community-based learning. The call’s guidance asked for the application to be written and led by the person carrying out the project. The project description needed to make its audience and community setting clear, explain why the chosen learning approach fit, and show how activities would build an ocean connection or stewardship. The required application fields and supporting documents were defined in the RFP and portal; they are not a universal list for future Society calls.

A well-prepared application for that call would have connected the budget to the work plan. Costs should have reflected the actual learning activities, participant access, local collaboration, travel or materials when relevant, and evaluation. The Society provides budget guidance and requires applicants to follow each call’s requirements. An applicant should never treat a past budget worksheet as permission to include an expense in a different opportunity.

For future applications to other Society RFPs, the steps are:

1. Review the current Grants and Investments page and choose an RFP whose stated scope matches the project.
2. Open that opportunity’s full description and review its eligibility, geography, timeline, budget terms, outcomes, and required materials.
3. Follow the RFP’s Apply link. New applicants create an account in the National Geographic Funding Portal; returning applicants use their existing credentials.
4. Complete the project, budget, collaborator, and other information requested by that specific application.
5. Submit through the portal before the deadline shown for that RFP and retain the confirmation and a copy of the submitted application.

Do not send a general proposal to the Society while waiting for an opportunity to appear. The current instructions state that the Society accepts applications only for specific funding opportunities, through the Funding Portal. If no open RFP matches a project, the available official guidance does not provide an alternative general submission route.

Choosing among current Society opportunities

The current Grants and Investments page lists targeted calls with distinct goals. For example, the Ocean Exploration and Discovery RFP seeks early-career scientists for ship-based research on a vessel traveling along the west and south coasts of Africa in the 2027–2028 route. The Visiting Scientist Program aboard the National Geographic-Lindblad Expeditions fleet focuses on experienced field scientists and Southern Ocean research in the 2027–2028 season. These are research opportunities with their own applicant profiles, not new Level I education grants.

The same page lists The Trebek Initiative, which supports storytelling, science, and education with impact in Canada, and The Human Thread, which seeks storytelling proposals about the range of human experience. As listed when checked, those calls showed deadlines of 2026-10-28 and 2026-12-01, respectively; the two ocean research calls showed 2026-10-21. These dates and opportunities can change, so readers should confirm the live RFP before planning a submission. Their existence does not mean that the former general Level I route has reopened.

A project that resembles the closed ocean literacy call should still be assessed against each currently open opportunity from scratch. A community education project may fit a future education RFP, but the Society’s current page does not promise when such a call will appear. Applicants should compare the proposed work against the purpose, eligible participants, location, and deliverables in the live posting instead of assuming that a broad alignment with Ocean or education is sufficient.

Planning a community education proposal

Although the Level I call is closed, its focus offers a useful example of the level of specificity a community education proposal needs. Begin with the people and place. Identify the learners, the water or ocean context shaping their experience, and the barriers that matter locally. A proposal should show whether the community helped define the challenge and how participants will shape the activities. Avoid describing a community only as a beneficiary; explain its knowledge, priorities, and role in decisions.

Next, connect the learning design to intended outcomes. Describe what participants will do, what ideas or skills they will practice, and how the project will assess progress. If an activity blends field experience, storytelling, local knowledge, or science, explain what each element contributes. A project may be ambitious, but the schedule, team responsibilities, access arrangements, and evaluation should make it plausible to complete.

Ethical and practical planning matters in place-based work. Depending on the project, this can include permissions, participant consent, child safeguarding, accessible participation, translation, transport, safety, local partner roles, and respectful use of community knowledge. These are planning considerations rather than a fixed list of requirements for every Society opportunity. A future RFP may specify different safeguards, forms, or attachments.

A budget should follow from the activities rather than from a remembered award ceiling. Estimate costs with enough detail that a reviewer can understand the relationship to the work. Check the active opportunity’s rules for allowable expenses, requested documentation, project duration, and any indirect-cost limits. Tailor the project to the actual maximum and period stated in the RFP; neither the old Level I amount nor this archive is a basis for budgeting a current application.

Questions readers often ask

Can I apply for this Level I Explorer Grant now?
No. The last identified Level I call in this record, Developing Future Ocean Stewards, closed on 2026-06-24. The Society’s current page does not show a successor general Level I cycle.

What was the amount?
In that specific call, Level I requests could be up to US$20,000. A Level II request could be up to US$100,000. Those amounts describe the archived opportunity; the Society says current RFP budgets are tailored to each call.

Could an existing National Geographic Explorer apply at Level I?
No, the archived call limited Level I to people who were not already Explorers. Existing Explorers could apply to its Level II track. A different RFP may have different rules.

Could an organization submit the application?
The archived opportunity was led by an individual project leader. An applicant could have an organizational affiliation or collaborators, but should not interpret that as an organization applying in its own name.

Does another Society grant mean the Level I model has returned?
No. The current opportunities are individual RFPs. Their scopes, eligibility, geography, deadlines, and budgets belong to those calls.

Can I email a general project proposal?
No. The Society directs applicants to apply through the Funding Portal for a specific open RFP and says it does not accept general applications by email or mail.

Source and archive note

This page was checked against the National Geographic Society’s official Grants and Investments page, which confirms the move from open calls to specific time-bound RFPs, the historical status of generic Level I and Level II tiers, the current tailored-funding model, and the general Funding Portal application route. The Society’s current page also states broad eligibility expectations and lists its live opportunities. The specific archived RFP was titled Developing Future Ocean Stewards; it focused on community-based ocean literacy and closed on the date retained in this record.

The page remains marked as a historical reference because its application window is closed and the Society has not listed a successor general Level I round. Keep the archived deadline in metadata so the record retains the closed call’s actual date, but do not present it as actionable. For anything currently open, use the Society’s live program page and read the full RFP before preparing materials. A later opportunity should be added to this record only after its own official posting establishes its scope, deadline, award limits, eligibility, and submission process.