Skip to content
George and Emma Jane Martin Foundati at a glance

· Private foundation

George and Emma Jane Martin Foundati

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$127k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$21k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Human Services$404kEducation$255kReligion$90kPhilanthropy$81kHousing & Shelter$81kPublic Benefit$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $42k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $85k
$9,871
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATION$21,150
METHODIST MISSION HOME -PROVIDENCE PLACE$14,096
MCMURRY UNIVERSITY$14,096
THE SALVATION ARMY$12,688
UNITED WAY OF BRAZORIA COUNTY$11,279
WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH$11,254
THE CHILDREN'S CENTER$9,871
BRAZOS PLACE$8,463
FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH$7,054
TEXAS GIRLS & BOYS RANCH$6,344
CHILDREN'S HOME OF LUBBOCK$6,344
HIS LOVE CHRISTIAN SERVICES$3,527
Individual grant recipient$711
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 (FY25–25, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%TEXAS GIRLS & BOYS RANCH: $6k → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$902k · 13 repeat orgs$15k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
2

Total granted

$902k
$15k

Still filing today

62%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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

  • BC
    BRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATION
    8× · 2018–2025 · $153k · revenue +47%
  • MCMURRY UNIVERSITY
    8× · 2018–2025 · $102k · revenue +93%
  • WT
    WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH
    8× · 2018–2025 · $81k · revenue +138%

Funded once

  • MM
    METHODIST MISSION HOME -PROVIDENCE PLACE
    one grant, 2025 · $14k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2025 · $711
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
Louisiana Baptist Childrens Home and Family Ministries

To provide love, care, and a positive christian witness for children and families in need.

—
2
Lubbock Family Outreach Center Inc Dba Family Guidance & Outreach Center

The Family Guidance & Outreach Center of Lubbock is dedicated to the prevention of child abuse and neglect and supporting, mentoring, and educating parents.

Human Services
3
Central Texas Children's Home

To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.

Human Services
4
Lubbock Christian School

Lubbock christian school is dedicated to providing a quality environment in which each student will grow in wisdom and stature and in favor with god and man. lcs strives for excellence spiritually, personally, and professionally among…

Education
5
Children's Advocacy Center of the South Plains

To bring together community resources to speed the healing of child victims of abuse and trauma.

Crime & Legal
6
Children's Aid Society of West Tx Inc

To provide shelter, supervision, and counseling for children in crisis; to cooperate with other agencies in order to resolve problems related to the welfare of these children; to assist the families of these children in seeking possible…

Human Services
7
Texas Center for Child and Family Studies

To strengthen the lives of children and families.

Human Services
8
Morning Star Boys Ranch

Morning Star Boys' Ranch, answering God's call to love and serve those in need, are dedicated to building responsible adults by believing in youth, and providing programs to strengthen families and the community.

Youth Development
9
Sjrc Texas Inc

To offer healing and hope to children and families affected by abuse, abandonment or neglect.

Human Services
10
Children At Heart Ministries Inc

Children at heart ministries is a family of christian ministries that exists to honor god and build a better world by serving children and strengthening families.

Human Services
11
Boys Club of Brazos County Inc

Service to youth

Youth Development
12
Casa of South Texas Inc

Child Advocacy

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Girls and Boys Ranch; the most unlike its peers is His Love Christian Services 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

8 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. 8 of the 15 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SALVATION ARMY: $91,643 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYMETHODIST MISSION HOME: $87,717 · OtherMETHODIST MISSION HOMEWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $81,373 · OtherWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCHTHE CHILDRENS CENTERINC: $71,299 · OtherTHE CHILDRENS CENTERINCBRAZOS PLACE: $61,127 · OtherBRAZOS PLACEFIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $50,954 · OtherFIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCHHis Love Christian Services Inc: $25,477 · Other+3 more: $19,830 · OtherBRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $152,768 · EducationBRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATIONMCMURRY UNIVERSITY: $101,813 · EducationMCMURRY UNIVERSITYCHILDREN'S HOME OF LUBBOCK AND FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY INC: $45,821 · Human ServicesCHILDREN'S …TEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH: $45,821 · Human ServicesTEXAS GIRLS…United Way of Brazoria County: $81,470 · PhilanthropyUnited Way…
Other$489,420Education$254,581Human Services$91,642Philanthropy$81,470

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 budgetBRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $152,768 over 8y, 2.1% of budgetMCMURRY UNIVERSITY: $101,813 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetUnited Way of Brazoria County: $81,470 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $81,373 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetTHE CHILDRENS CENTERINC: $71,299 over 8y, 0.8% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOME OF LUBBOCK AND FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY INC: $45,821 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetTEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH: $45,821 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetHis Love Christian Services Inc: $25,477 over 8y, 2.6% 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.

  • Who funds BRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MCMURRY UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds United Way of Brazoria County ↗
  • Who funds WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH ↗
  • Who funds THE CHILDRENS CENTERINC ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S HOME OF LUBBOCK AND FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH ↗
  • Who funds His Love Christian Services Inc ↗

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.

Charities Aid Foundat…National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Charities Aid Foundation AmericaVA10.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 George and Emma Jane Martin Foundati funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from George and Emma Jane Martin Foundati. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s 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)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 15 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on George and Emma Jane Martin Foundati’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