Skip to content
Martin and Brown Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Martin and Brown Foundation

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.

$657k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$150k
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, FY2020 to 2025.

Arts & Culture$1.0MHealth$854kCivil Rights$653kEducation$395kInternational$130kPublic Benefit$125kHousing & Shelter$80kPhilanthropy$51kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $132k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $525k
$50,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MINNPOST$150,000
WALKER ART CENTER$120,000
CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE$80,000
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS$75,000
AMERICAN JEWISH JOINT DISTRIBUTION COMMITTEE (JDC)$50,000
ADVOCATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS$50,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD NCS$45,000
AVIVO$30,000
WASHBURN CENTER FOR CHILDREN$25,000
THEATER MU$12,000
NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTANS FOR WILDERNESS$10,000
MINNESOTA PRIVATE COLLEGE FUND$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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $100k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%AVIVO: $30k → 11%AVIVO: $25k → 11%AVIVO: $25k → 11%YOUTHLINK: $20k → 11%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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.0M · 19 repeat orgs$403k to everyone else

19 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
10

Total granted

$3.0M
$218k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
+37%

Still filing today

68%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $185k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Arts & CultureCivil RightsEducationHealthInternationalHuman ServicesOther
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

  • WA
    WALKER ART CENTER
    6× · 2020–2025 · $615k · revenue +471%
  • THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $375k · revenue +69%
  • WC
    Washburn Center for Children
    4× · 2022–2025 · $215k · revenue +11%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $65k · revenue +137%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
    one grant, 2024 · $40k
  • CN
    CARPENTER NATURE CENTER
    one grant, 2021 · $25k
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
Women Winning

To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.

Public Benefit
2
Minnesota Business Partnership

The minnesota business partnership's mission is to maintain a high quality of life for all minnesotans by ensuring that the state's economy remains strong, globally competitive and its prospects for growth bright by working with elected…

—
3
Minnesota Council on Foundations

MCF is a vibrant philanthropic community connecting, strengthening and mobilizing the power of philanthropy to advance prosperity and equity.

—
4
Minnesota Women Lawyers

To advance the success of women attorneys and strive for a just society.

—
5
Pro-Choice Minnesota

To develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee women the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices.

—
6
Women's Foundation of Minnesota

Women's Foundation of Minnesota is a statewide community foundation investing in ending systemic inequities and driving innovation for gender and racial justice. WFM applies an Intersectional Equity Framework inclusive of gender, race,…

Philanthropy
7
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Industry

The minnesota chamber of commerce proactively leads the business community statewide to: advance pro-business, responsible minnesota public policy that creates jobs and grows the econony; provde member services to address evolving business…

—
8
Twin Cities Diversity in Practice

To attract, recruit, advance, and retain attorneys of color in the twin cities through education and collaboration with member organizations.

Community Improvement
9
Minnesota Medical Association

To be the leading voice of medicine to make minnesota the healthiest state and the best place to practice.

—
10
Planned Parenthood North Central States Foundation

To build and maintain financial support for planned parenthood north central states to advance and protect sexual and reproductive health care for all.

Human Services
11
Intermountain Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood of Montana empowers all people to make informed decisions and ensures the freedom to manage their own sexuality, and personal health by providing the highest quality confidential healthcare services, education, and…

Health
12
Guttmacher Institute Inc

The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Minnesota Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Theater Mu Incorporated. 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

21 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. 21 of the 33 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)
21/21
Grantees still filing
13/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WALKER ART CENTER: $615,000 · Arts & CultureWALKER ART CENTERMinnPost: $170,000 · Arts & CultureMinnPostTHEATER MU INCORPORATED: $94,000 · Arts & CultureTHEATER MU INCORPORATED+1 more: $5,000 · Arts & CulturePLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MN ND SD: $434,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MN ND S…LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MINNESOTA: $85,000 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MIN…BELL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES: $80,000 · OtherBELL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTOR…WEISMAN ART MUSEUM: $50,000 · OtherWEISMAN ART MUSEUMPLANNED PARENTHOOD NCS: $45,000 · OtherLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: $40,000 · OtherMICROGRANTS: $51,000 · OtherMICROGRANTS+7 more: $125,000 · Other+7 moreTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $375,000 · Civil RightsTHE CENTER FOR …RELIGIOUS COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE: $68,000 · Civil RightsRELIGIOUS COALI…+2 more: $20,000 · Civil RightsWESTOVER SCHOOL INC: $300,000 · EducationWESTOVER SCH…UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $65,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY O…MINNESOTA PRIVATE COLLEGE FUND: $30,000 · EducationMINNESOTA PR…Washburn Center for Children: $215,000 · HealthWashburn Cen…PLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTH CENTRAL STATES: $125,000 · HealthPLANNED PARE…Trust Women Foundation Inc: $25,000 · HealthTrust Women …The Advocates For Human Rights: $200,000 · InternationalThe Advoca…THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE: $80,000 · InternationalTHE CENTER…The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee Inc: $50,000 · InternationalThe Americ…AVIVO: $80,000 · Human ServicesYOUTHLINK: $20,000 · Human Services
Arts & Culture$884,000Other$910,000Civil Rights$463,000Education$395,000Health$365,000International$330,000Human Services$100,000

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 budgetWALKER ART CENTER: $615,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $375,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetWESTOVER SCHOOL INC: $300,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetWashburn Center for Children: $215,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetThe Advocates For Human Rights: $200,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetMinnPost: $170,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTH CENTRAL STATES: $125,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHEATER MU INCORPORATED: $94,000 over 6y, 2.2% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE: $80,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAVIVO: $80,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetRELIGIOUS COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE: $68,000 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $65,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMICROGRANTS: $51,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetMINNESOTA PRIVATE COLLEGE FUND: $30,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetTrust Women Foundation Inc: $25,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetYOUTHLINK: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNORTHEASTERN MINNESOTANS FOR WILDERNESS: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPROVIDE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTWIN CITIES PUBLIC TELEVISION INC: $5,000 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.

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.

Otto Bremer TrustThe Minneapolis Found…Mightycause Charitabl…Saint Paul & Minnesot…Xcel Energy FoundationPohlad Family Foundat…Charities Aid Foundat…Jane R Newman Charita…Frey FoundationMarbrook FoundationLenfestey Family Foun…The Walser Foundation
Otto Bremer TrustMN19.1× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Otto Bremer Trust · The Minneapolis Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · Pohlad Family Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Jane R Newman Charitable Trust · Frey Foundation · Marbrook Foundation · Lenfestey Family Foundation Inc · The Walser 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 Martin and Brown Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Martin and Brown Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 Martin and Brown Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Martin and Brown Foundation 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 33 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 Martin and Brown’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