· Private foundation
George & Miriam Martin Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k23 grants · $77k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $90k
- $250k+1 grant · $500k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| GREEN AMENDMENTS FOR THE GENERATIONS | $5,000 |
| PENN FUTURE | $5,000 |
| WOODSTOCK LAND CONSERVANCY | $5,000 |
| MAHOOSUC LAND TRUST | $5,000 |
| ROYAL RIVER CONSERVATION TRUST | $5,000 |
| DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY | $5,000 |
| MAINE RIVERS | $4,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +51% since the first grant, against -13% for the ones you 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
EARTHJUSTICE9× · 2017–2025 · $14M · revenue +82%- MLMahoosuc Land Trust Inc6× · 2020–2025 · $268k · revenue +25%
- IRInternational Rivers Network9× · 2017–2025 · $210k · revenue +3%
Funded once
- KEKEYSTONE ENERGY EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2017 · $10k
- PRPENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INCone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue -37%
- AEADVANCED ENERGY EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2017 · $10k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
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.
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…
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
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.
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 &…
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…
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.
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…
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…
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.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pennenvironment Inc and 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.
Your grantees are a median of 33 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
39 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, 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; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your 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 The Center for Investigative Reporting formrly Foundation for National Progress ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE ↗
- 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 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INC ↗
- Who funds Natural Resources Council of Maine Inc ↗
- Who funds EL PORVENIR ↗
- Who funds PENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds MAINE RIVERS ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
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
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization George & Miriam Martin Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- 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
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.