Skip to content
Maine Mountain Collaborative at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Maine Mountain Collaborative

Through collaboration of land conservation and forestry organizations MMC innovates and accelerates land conservation in the 5 million-acre Maine Appalachian Mountain Corridor.

$111k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$581kRecreation & Sports$31kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $51k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
$15,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$184k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Somerset Woods Trustee$60,000
The Conservation Fund$15,000
The Trust for Public Land$15,000
First Light New Learning Journey$10,865
High Peaks Alliance$10,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 62% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NE FORESTRY FOUNDATION: $7k → 8%Appalachian Mountain Club: $13k → 16%The Conservation Fund: $15k → 7%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $40k → 9%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $50k → 7%Mahoosuc Land Trust: $25k → 13%HIGH PEAKS ALLIANCE: $21k → 14%FOREST SOCIETY OF MAINE: $28k → 15%Friends of Wilson Ponds Area: $25k → 15%Somerset Woods Trustee: $60k → 15%The Conservation Fund: $15k → 7%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $13k → 9%The Trust for Public Land: $53k → 7%MAHOOSIC LAND TRUST: $20k → 13%High Peaks Alliance: $10k → 14%FOREST SOCIETY OF MAINE: $20k → 15%First Light New Learning Journey: $11k → 9%The Trust for Public Land: $13k → 7%Mahoosuc Land Trust: $20k → 13%Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust: $25k → 14%Forest Society of Maine: $15k → 15%MAHOOSUC LAND TRUST: $17k → 13%Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust: $25k → 14%Mahoosuc Land Trust: $15k → 13%RANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TR: $10k → 14%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 22% of Maine Mountain Collaborative’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 93% of the giving stays in ME; by stated purpose, 61%.

Maine Mountain Collaborativelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 34% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$372k · 6 repeat orgs$200k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +101% since the first grant, against +3% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$372k
$129k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+101%
+3%

Still filing today

83%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 36% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $71k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
    5× · 2018–2024 · $133k · revenue +119%
  • ML
    Mahoosuc Land Trust Inc
    4× · 2017–2023 · $97k · revenue +101%
  • HP
    HIGH PEAKS ALLIANCE
    2× · 2021–2024 · $31k · revenue +220%

Funded once

  • RL
    RANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INC
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +16%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF WILSON POND AREA INC
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • MA
    Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +3%
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
Wetlands Foundation
Environment
2
Piscataquog Land Conservancy

The Piscataquog Land Conservancy is a nonprofit land conservation organization founded in 1970. Its purpose is to conserve the natural and scenic environment of the Piscataquog, Souhegan and Nashua River watershed communities of southern…

—
3
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
4
Presumpscot Regional Land Trust

We engage with communities to conserve, steward, and provide access to local lands and clean water for current and future generations to enjoy.

—
5
Coastal Mountains Land Trust

We conserve land permanently to benefit the natural and human communities of western the Penobscot Bay region.

Environment
6
Massachusetts Outdoor Heritage Foundation Inc Attn Susan Sacco
—
7
Massachusetts Land Conservation Trust

Conservation and preservation of land.

Environment
8
Kennebunk Land Trust

Kennebunk Land Trust's mission is to permanently conserve and steward land to benefit natural and human communities.

Environment
9
Chebeague & Cumberland Land Trust

Our mission is to permanently conserve and steward natural resources across our island and mainland communities for the benefit of current and future generations.

—
10
Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust

To protect open spaces with conservation, historic or scenic value, including agricultural and forested lands, and wildlife habitats, within the western White Mountains region of Northern New Hampshire.

Environment
11
Protect Maine's Fishing Heritage Foundation
Environment
12
Royal River Conservation Trust

The royal river conservation trust (rrct) is a regional land trust working primarily in seven maine municipalities. the trust owns,cares for, and stewards land and conservation easements to protect land and water resources for the general…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Conservation Fund a Nonprofit Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Friends of Wilson Pond Area Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

12 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. 12 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)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $133,144 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDMahoosuc Land Trust Inc: $97,025 · EnvironmentMahoosuc Land Trust IncForest Society of Maine: $62,000 · EnvironmentForest Society of MaineSOMERSET WOODS TRUSTEES: $60,000 · EnvironmentSOMERSET WOODS TRUSTEESRANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INC: $50,000 · EnvironmentRANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INCTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $30,000 · EnvironmentTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATIONMaine Appalachian Trail Land Trust: $25,000 · Environment+2 more: $23,730 · EnvironmentTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $50,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVAN…FRIENDS OF WILSON POND AREA INC: $25,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF WILSON PO…Individual grant recipient: $19,000 · OtherIndividual grant rec…RANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TR: $9,800 · OtherRANGELEY LAKES HERIT…NE FORESTRY FOUNDATION: $6,750 · OtherNE FORESTRY FOUNDATI…HIGH PEAKS ALLIANCE: $30,500 · Recreation & Sports
Environment$480,899Other$110,550Recreation & Sports$30,500

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $133,144 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetMahoosuc Land Trust Inc: $97,025 over 4y, 3.0% of budgetForest Society of Maine: $62,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetSOMERSET WOODS TRUSTEES: $60,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRANGELEY LAKES HERITAGE TRUST INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetHIGH PEAKS ALLIANCE: $30,500 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMaine Appalachian Trail Land Trust: $25,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetAppalachian Mountain Club: $12,865 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEW LEARNING JOURNEY INC: $10,865 over 1y, 0.6% 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.

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.

Maine Community Found…Davis Conservation Fo…Onion FoundationJohn Sage FoundationFields Pond Foundatio…Open Space Institute …Quimby Family Foundat…The Nature ConservancyVanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Maine Community Foundation IncME19.3× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Maine Community Foundation Inc · Davis Conservation Foundation · Onion Foundation · John Sage Foundation · Fields Pond Foundation Inc · Open Space Institute Land Trust Inc · Quimby Family Foundation · The Nature Conservancy · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Maine Mountain Collaborative funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Maine Mountain Collaborative. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Appalachian Mountain Club: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Maine Mountain Collaborative?

Find your warmest path to Maine Mountain Collaborative through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Maine Mountain Collaborative’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