Skip to content
George & Miriam Martin Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

George & Miriam Martin Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$667k
Granted FY2025still arriving
29
Grants FY2025still arriving
12
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$16MPublic Benefit$140kCrime & Legal$62kAnimals$61kCommunity Improvement$9kRecreation & Sports$8kArts & Culture$1kOther$0
02FY2025 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k23 grants · $77k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $90k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$4,000
Median grant
12
States reached
$4.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
EARTHJUSTICE$500,000
Individual grant recipient$35,000
MOTHER JONES$20,000
INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK$15,000
NATURAL LANDS TRUST$10,000
AMERICAN WHITEWATER$10,000
PENN ENVIRONMENT$9,000
Individual grant recipient$7,000
ROYAL RIVER CONSERVATION TRUST$5,000
WOODSTOCK LAND CONSERVANCY$5,000
DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY$5,000
PENN FUTURE$5,000
GREEN AMENDMENTS FOR THE GENERATIONS$5,000
MAHOOSUC LAND TRUST$5,000
MAINE RIVERS$4,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%NATURAL LANDS BRYN COED: $25k → 6%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $40k → 6%NATURAL LANDS TRUST: $500k → 10%PENN FUTURE: $30k → 12%EARTHJUSTICE: $1.9M → 10%WOODSTOCK LAND CONSERVANCY: $20k → 16%MOTHER JONES: $20k → 16%AMERICAN WHITEWATER: $20k → 18%MAHOOSUC LAND TRUST: $150k → 13%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $40k → 6%NATURAL LANDS TRUST: $35k → 10%PENN FUTURE: $20k → 12%EARTHJUSTICE: $1.8M → 10%EARTHJUSTICE: $2.0M → 10%MOTHER JONES: $20k → 16%MAHOOSUC LAND TRUST: $100k → 13%FRENCH & PICKERING CREEK CONSERVATION: $100k → 6%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $40k → 6%NATURAL LANDS TRUST: $25k → 10%PENN FUTURE: $20k → 12%EARTHJUSTICE: $1.8M → 10%EARTHJUSTICE: $2.0M → 10%MOTHER JONES: $20k → 16%FRENCH & PICKERING CREEK CONSERVATION: $20k → 6%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $40k → 6%NATURAL LANDS TRUST: $25k → 10%PENN FUTURE: $20k → 12%EARTHJUSTICE: $1.4M → 10%EARTHJUSTICE: $500k → 10%MOTHER JONES: $20k → 16%FRENCH & PICKERING CREEK CONSERVATION: $20k → 6%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $40k → 6%NATURAL LANDS TRUST: $25k → 10%EARTHJUSTICE: $1.4M → 10%MOTHER JONES: $20k → 16%GREEN VALLEYS ASSOC: $20k → 6%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $40k → 6%EARTHJUSTICE: $1.1M → 10%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $40k → 6%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $35k → 6%DELAWARE RIVER KEEPER: $35k → 6%INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK: $30k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK: $30k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK: $30k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK: $30k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK: $30k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK: $30k → 10%INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK: $25k → 10%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
WA
NY
MA
OR
PA
NJ
CA
UT
CO
VA
MD
NM
NC
DC
TX
FL
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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$17M · 46 repeat orgs$49k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +51% since the first grant, against -13% for those funded once.

46 repeat relationships: 27 still active in FY2025, 19 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

46
9

Total granted

$17M
$43k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+51%
-13%

Still filing today

72%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsCrime & LegalSocial ScienceCommunity ImprovementInternationalOther
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

  • EARTHJUSTICE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $14M · revenue +82%
  • ML
    Mahoosuc Land Trust Inc
    6× · 2020–2025 · $268k · revenue +25%
  • IR
    International Rivers Network
    9× · 2017–2025 · $210k · revenue +3%

Funded once

  • PR
    PENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue -37%
  • AE
    ADVANCED ENERGY EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • KE
    KEYSTONE ENERGY EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
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
Idaho Conservation League Inc

Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.

—
2
Nw Energy Coalition

The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…

—
3
National Association of Clean Water Agencies

Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.

—
4
Environment Now
—
5
Center for Environmental Law & Policy

The Center for Environmental Law & Policy is a statewide organization whose mission is to protect, preserve and restore Washington's waters through education, advocacy, policy reform, and public interest litigation.

Environment
6
Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Nedc's mission is to work toward a future in which the pacific northwest leads the nation in developing, implementing & enforcing strong laws and regulations that protect the environment & human health, and where our governments &…

—
7
Western Rivers Conservancy

Western rivers conservancy's mission is to protect outstanding river ecosystems in the western united states. continued on schedule o.we acquire land to conserve critical habitat, provide public access for compatible use and enjoyment, and…

Environment
8
CalWild

The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.

—
9
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
10
Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest

The environmental law & policy center (elpc) is the midwest's leading public interest environmental legal advocacy and ecobusiness innovation organization, and among the nation's leaders. we develop and lead successful strategic…

Environment
11
Northwest Environmental Advocates

Work through advocacy and education to use federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act to protect and restore water quality and habit in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide.

Environment
12
Midcoast Conservancy

The mission of Midcoast Conservancy is to protect vital lands and waters on a scale that matters and to inspire wonder and action on behalf of all species and the Earth.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pennenvironment Inc; the most unlike its peers is Rails to Trails Conservancy. 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

39 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. 39 of the 57 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)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
39/39
Grantees still filing
27/39
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EARTHJUSTICE: $13,954,894 · EnvironmentEARTHJUSTICENatural Lands Trust Inc: $645,000 · Environment+19 more: $919,824 · Environment+19 moreIndividual grant recipient: $350,000 · OtherFRENCH & PICKERING CREEK CONSERVATION: $167,000 · OtherGREEN VALLEYS ASSOC: $77,000 · OtherPENNENVIRONMENT INC: $65,000 · OtherCHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION: $48,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $41,000 · OtherWILDEARTH GUARDIANS: $39,000 · OtherHORSESHOE TRAIL CONSERVANCY INC: $33,600 · Other+18 more: $174,200 · OtherThe Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress: $140,000 · Public BenefitPUBLIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION: $62,000 · Crime & LegalCommunity Environmental Legal Defense Fund: $19,000 · Crime & LegalDING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC: $48,000 · AnimalsTROUT UNLIMITED INC: $16,000 · AnimalsDOWNEAST SALMON FEDERATION: $13,000 · AnimalsKEYSTONE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE: $50,000 · Community ImprovementHASER Inc: $3,000 · Community ImprovementEARTH LAW CENTER: $14,000 · Social ScienceINSIDE CLIMATE NEWS INC: $3,000 · Social Science
Environment$15,519,718Other$994,800Public Benefit$140,000Crime & Legal$81,000Animals$77,000Community Improvement$53,000Social Science$17,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $13,954,894 over 9y, 1.7% of budgetNatural Lands Trust Inc: $645,000 over 8y, 1.3% of budgetMahoosuc Land Trust Inc: $268,000 over 6y, 10% of budgetInternational Rivers Network: $210,000 over 9y, 2.2% of budgetCITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE: $140,000 over 9y, 0.9% of budgetThe Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress: $140,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetPENNENVIRONMENT INC: $65,000 over 8y, 0.8% of budgetPUBLIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION: $62,000 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetAdvanced Energy Institute: $50,000 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetKEYSTONE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE: $50,000 over 5y, 12% of budgetDING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC: $48,000 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetWoodstock Land Conservancy Inc: $45,824 over 9y, 4.8% of budgetROYAL RIVER CONSERVATION TRUST: $45,000 over 7y, 1.7% of budgetWILDEARTH GUARDIANS: $39,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetClean Air Council: $39,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetAmerican Whitewater: $32,000 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION: $23,000 over 5y, 12% of budgetCommunity Environmental Legal Defense Fund: $19,000 over 8y, 2.3% of budgetTROUT UNLIMITED INC: $16,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetEARTH LAW CENTER: $14,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetDOWNEAST SALMON FEDERATION: $13,000 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetNatural Resources Council of Maine Inc: $12,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetPUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INC: $12,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetPENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetEL PORVENIR: $10,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetMAINE RIVERS: $8,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetRAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY: $7,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCHESTER RIDLEY CRUM WATERSHEDS ASSOCIATION: $7,000 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetIronbound Community Corporation: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetRECLAM THE BAY: $6,000 over 6y, 3.1% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC: $6,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF CEDAR MESA: $6,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetWECONSERVEPA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetFOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS INC: $3,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetINSIDE CLIMATE NEWS INC: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHASER Inc: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPENNYPACK ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION TRUST: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 EARTHJUSTICE ↗
  • Who funds Natural Lands Trust Inc ↗
  • Who funds Mahoosuc Land Trust Inc ↗
  • Who funds International Rivers Network ↗
  • Who funds CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE ↗
  • Who funds The Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress ↗
  • Who funds PENNENVIRONMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds PUBLIC JUSTICE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Advanced Energy Institute ↗
  • Who funds KEYSTONE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds Woodstock Land Conservancy Inc ↗
  • Who funds ROYAL RIVER CONSERVATION TRUST ↗
  • Who funds WILDEARTH GUARDIANS ↗
  • Who funds Clean Air Council ↗
  • Who funds American Whitewater ↗
  • Who funds PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund ↗
  • Who funds TROUT UNLIMITED INC ↗
  • Who funds EARTH LAW CENTER ↗
  • Who funds DOWNEAST SALMON FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds Natural Resources Council of Maine Inc ↗
  • Who funds PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INC ↗
  • Who funds PENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds EL PORVENIR ↗
  • Who funds MAINE RIVERS ↗

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.

PatagoniaorgMaine Community Found…Resources Legacy FundClif Family FoundationThe Partnership Proje…National Fish and Wil…The Winky Foundation …Environmental Defense…New Venture FundThe Schmidt Family Fo…United States Energy …The William Penn Foun…
PatagoniaorgCA23.9× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Maine Community Foundation Inc · Resources Legacy Fund · Clif Family Foundation · The Partnership Project Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Winky Foundation Co Wilmington Trust Co · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · New Venture Fund · The Schmidt Family Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · The William Penn 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 & Miriam Martin Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from George & Miriam Martin Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 18%
  • Ironbound Community Corporation: 100% of income from government
  • Mystic River Watershed Association Inc: 18% of income from government
  • American Whitewater: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get 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, FY20–25
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 57 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 & Miriam Martin’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