Skip to content
Massachusetts Woodlands Institute Inc Dba Ma Woodlands Institute at a glance

· Public charity

Massachusetts Woodlands Institute Inc Dba Ma Woodlands Institute

See schedule othe massachusetts woodlands institute is a non-profit organization that encourages and assists landowners in responsibly managing thier woodlands.

$1.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$29k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Environment$653kYouth Development$10k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $139,722, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,330,929 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,191,207 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $36k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $104k
$14,777
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TOWN OF READING$28,750
TOWN OF MONSON$27,361
TOWN OF SHERBORN$17,850
TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE$14,884
WEYMOUTHBRAINTREEREGRECREATIONCONSERVDIST$14,777
TOWN OF EGREMONT$9,750
TOWN OF HATFIELD$9,562
TOWN OF WINDSOR$5,884
TOWN OF BLANDFORD$5,484
TOWN OF BERNARDSTON$5,420
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 11%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%WEYMOUTHBRAINTREEREGRECREATIONCONSERVDIST: $15k → 7%TOWN OF MIDDLEBOROUGH: $7k → 8%TOWN OF SHERBORN: $18k → 8%TOWN OF HATFIELD: $15k → 10%TOWN OF CLINTON: $5k → 11%BEJAMIN FORESTRY SERVICES INC: $17k → 11%TOWN OF GOSHEN: $5k → 12%TOWN OF WINDSOR: $6k → 12%TOWN OF GILL: $8k → 14%TOWN OF BLANDFORD: $5k → 17%NEW ENGLAND FORESTRY CONSULTANTS INC: $12k → 10%TOWN OF SHERBORN: $10k → 8%TOWN OF HATFIELD: $10k → 10%TOWN OF LUNENBERG: $17k → 11%BENJAMIN FORESTRY SERVICES INC: $10k → 11%TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE: $24k → 12%NORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON SCHOOL: $6k → 14%TOWN OF MONSON: $27k → 17%TOWN OF SHERBORN: $10k → 8%CITY OF GARDNER: $8k → 11%TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE: $15k → 12%TOWN OF GREENFIELD: $10k → 14%WESTERN MA COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $10k → 17%TOWN OF READING: $29k → 8%VEGETATION CONTROL SERVICES DBA BAYSTATE FORESTY SERVICE: $7k → 11%TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE: $14k → 12%TOWN OF BERNARDSTON: $5k → 14%TOWN OF READING: $10k → 8%TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE: $14k → 12%TOWN OF GREENFIELD: $2k → 14%TOWN OF READING: $10k → 8%TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE: $11k → 12%TOWN OF READING: $7k → 8%BERKSHIRE NATURAL RESOURCES: $12k → 12%MASS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $9k → 8%TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON: $33k → 12%TOWN OF NATICK: $38k → 8%TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON: $18k → 12%TOWN OF NATICK: $27k → 8%TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON: $18k → 12%TOWN OF EGREMONT: $22k → 8%TOWN OF MT WASHINGTON: $40k → 12%TOWN OF NATICK: $9k → 8%TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON: $15k → 12%TOWN OF ASHLAND: $8k → 8%TOWN OF EGREMONT: $10k → 12%TWO STATE YMCA: $8k → 12%TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON: $10k → 12%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.

58%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$386k · 8 repeat orgs$277k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
18

Total granted

$386k
$208k

Still filing today

0%
28%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $69k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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

  • TO
    TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE
    5× · 2020–2025 · $78k
  • TO
    TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON
    4× · 2020–2023 · $75k
  • TO
    TOWN OF NATICK
    3× · 2020–2022 · $75k

Funded once

  • TO
    TOWN OF MT WASHINGTON
    one grant, 2024 · $40k
  • EL
    EGREMONT LAND TRUST INC
    one grant, 2023 · $22k · revenue -10% · 54% of their budget
  • TO
    TOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON
    one grant, 2024 · $18k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 32 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
2/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TOWN OF STOCKBRIDGE: $78,118 · OtherTOWN OF STOCKBRIDGETOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTON: $74,791 · OtherTOWN OF GREAT BARRINGTONTOWN OF NATICK: $74,585 · OtherTOWN OF NATICKREADING PUBLIC LIBRARY: $55,680 · OtherREADING PUBLIC LIBRARYTOWN OF MT WASHINGTON: $40,000 · OtherTOWN OF MT WASHINGTONTown of Sherborn: $38,616 · OtherTown of SherbornMONSON SCHOOL DISTRICT GRANITE VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL: $27,361 · OtherBEJAMIN FORESTRY SERVICES INC: $27,087 · OtherSMITH ACADEMY: $24,895 · Other+19 more: $175,442 · Other+19 moreEGREMONT LAND TRUST INC: $21,590 · EnvironmentMASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $8,529 · EnvironmentBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS COUNCIL INC: $10,077 · Youth DevelopmentNORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON SCHOOL: $6,448 · Education
Other$616,575Environment$30,119Youth Development$10,077Education$6,448

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEGREMONT LAND TRUST INC: $21,590 over 1y, 54% of budgetBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS COUNCIL INC: $10,077 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $8,529 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTWO STATE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION INC: $8,094 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON SCHOOL: $6,448 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 EGREMONT LAND TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds MASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds TWO STATE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTHFIELD MOUNT HERMON SCHOOL ↗

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.

Center for Technology…The Stanton FoundationProject Bread-The Wal…Project Lead the Way …
Center for Technology and Civic LifeIL28.2× affinity13 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Center for Technology and Civic Life · The Stanton Foundation · Project Bread-The Walk for Hunger Inc · Project Lead the Way Inc

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 Massachusetts Woodlands Institute Inc Dba Ma Woodlands Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Massachusetts Woodlands Institute Inc Dba Ma Woodlands Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Egremont Land Trust Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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 32 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Massachusetts Woodlands Institute Inc Dba Ma Woodlands Institute’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