Skip to content
Forever Marylandinc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Forever Marylandinc

Forever maryland promotes and supports the land conservation community, through education, advocacy, and outreach, to permanently protect working landscapes and healthy ecosystems for all.

$52k
Granted FY2023
5
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2020 to 2023.

Environment$285kCommunity Improvement$24kHealth$10kEmployment$8k
02FY2023 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $41,900, the rows itemized in this filing. The $52,001 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,101 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$8,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$112k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GALACENE SERVICES$9,900
INTERFAITH PARTNERS$8,000
TURNAROUND TUESDAYS$8,000
REBUILD METRO$8,000
GUNPOWDER VALLEY CONSERVANCY$8,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–23, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%TURNAROUND TUESDAYS: $8k → 19%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.
03Its 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
Baltimore Tree Trust Inc

To restore baltimore's urban forest through increased tree planting, community engagement, and advocacy.

Environment
2
Baltimore Green Space

Baltimore Green Space is a land trust that partners with communities to preserve and support community gardens , forest patches , pocket parks , and other community-managed spaces.

Environment
3
Community Development Network of Maryland Inc

To promote, strengthen, and advocate for the community development sector throughout Marylands urban, suburban, and rural communities.

Community Improvement
4
Middle Patuxent Environmental Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Greater Baybrook Alliance Inc

Greater Baybrook Alliance GBA is a non-profit community development organization whose mission is to act as a catalyst and conduit for equitable development and reinvestment in the Brooklyn, Brooklyn Park, Curtis Bay neighborhoods and…

Community Improvement
6
Harry R Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology

The Center brings together diverse interests from the agricultural, forestry, and environmental communities for the purpose of retaining Maryland's working landscapes and the industries they support while protecting and improving the…

Food & Nutrition
7
Sustainable Chesapeake

Cultivating prosperity for farms, business and communities through innovative environmental solutions.

Public Benefit
8
Northern Virginia Conservation Trust

The Northern Virginia Conservation Trust saves nearby nature by encouraging and assisting governments and private landowners to preserve and care for natural areas, trails, streams, parks, and historic and cultural resources for the…

Environment
9
Rock Creek Conservancy Inc

Restore Rock Creek and its parklands as a natural oasis for all people to appreciate and protect.

Environment
10
Chesapeake Stormwater Network Inc
Environment
11
Umbc Research Park Corporation Inc

To develop and manage the research and technology park for umbc to facilitate research collaborations, tech transfer, and to create jobs.

—
12
Baltimore Public Markets Corporation

Operates public markets as a base for neighborhood commercial revitalization.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Gunpowder Valley Conservancy Inc; the most unlike its peers is Turnaround Tuesday Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 14 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MARYLAND ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST: $140,000 · OtherMARYLAND ENVIRONMENTAL TRUSTGALACENE SERVICES: $9,900 · OtherGALACENE SERVICESPARTNERS FOR OPEN SPACE: $8,038 · OtherStillmeadow Community Projects Inc: $8,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $8,000 · OtherGUNPOWDER VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC: $8,000 · OtherCATOCTIN LAND TRUST INC: $79,216 · EnvironmentCATOCTIN LAND TRUST INCThe Charles Koiner Center for Urban Farming Incorporated: $10,000 · EnvironmentThe Charles Koiner Center for Urban Far…INTERFAITH PARTNERS FOR THE CHESAPEAKE INC: $8,000 · EnvironmentINTERFAITH PARTNERS FOR THE CHESAPEAKE …NEIGHBORSPACE OF BALTIMORE COUNTY INC: $8,000 · EnvironmentNEIGHBORSPACE OF BALTIMORE COUNTY INCBLUE WATER BALTIMORE: $8,000 · EnvironmentBLUE WATER BALTIMORENEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN CENTER INC: $16,000 · Community ImprovementREBUILD METRO INC: $8,000 · Community ImprovementTurnaround Tuesday Inc: $8,000 · Human Services
Other$181,938Environment$113,216Community Improvement$24,000Human Services$8,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCATOCTIN LAND TRUST INC: $79,216 over 2y, 47% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN CENTER INC: $16,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetThe Charles Koiner Center for Urban Farming Incorporated: $10,000 over 1y, 7.3% of budgetStillmeadow Community Projects Inc: $8,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetREBUILD METRO INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTurnaround Tuesday Inc: $8,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetINTERFAITH PARTNERS FOR THE CHESAPEAKE INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetNEIGHBORSPACE OF BALTIMORE COUNTY INC: $8,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetGUNPOWDER VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC: $8,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetBLUE WATER BALTIMORE: $8,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

Chesapeake Bay TrustFrance-Merrick Founda…National Fish and Wil…Baltimore Community F…The Morris Goldseker …The Abell Foundation …The United Way of Cen…T Rowe Price Program …Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Chesapeake Bay TrustMD22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Chesapeake Bay Trust · France-Merrick Foundation Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Baltimore Community Foundation Inc · The Morris Goldseker Foundation of Maryland Inc · The Abell Foundation Inc · The United Way of Central Maryland Inc · T Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Forever Marylandinc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Forever Marylandinc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 14%
  • Gunpowder Valley Conservancy Inc: 20% of income from government
  • Neighborhood Design Center Inc: 14% of income from government
  • Rebuild Metro Inc: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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 14 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Forever Marylandinc’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