Skip to content

· Public charity

New Mexico Association of Counties

To strengthen nm counties' ability to govern their own affairs and improve the well-being and quality of life of their constituents.

$1.4M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$528k
Largest
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.

Public Safety & Disaster$5.4MHealth$801kEnvironment$558kCrime & Legal$322kYouth Development$315kPublic Benefit$227kRecreation & Sports$43kReligion$32kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $110k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $385k
  • $250k+2 grants · $903k
$24,710
Median grant
1
States reached
$8.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SAN JUAN SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION$527,780
SOUTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN RC&D COUNCIL$374,800
Individual grant recipient$175,000
CUIDAD SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION$109,824
OTERO COUNTY$99,997
SANTA FE-POJOAQUE SOIL & WATER$24,710
GRANT COUNTY$20,000
CLAUNCH-PINTO SOILD & WATER$19,500
Individual grant recipient$19,500
DIXON COMMUNITY FIRE DEPARTMENT$13,527
EAST MOUNTAIN WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS$13,090
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 18%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 76% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%Sandoval County Detention Center: $37k → 10%VARIOUS UNDER 5K: $43k → 12%Center of Excellence (CEHMM): $155k → 13%CUIDAD SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION: $110k → 14%CURRY COUNTY: $45k → 18%Taos County New Mexico: $71k → 18%Lea County New Mexico: $91k → 19%OTERO COUNTY: $100k → 20%Grant Soil & Water Conservation District: $248k → 20%Edgewood Soil & Water Conservation District: $409k → 20%HIDDEN LAKE PROPERTY: $60k → 21%Dona Ana County: $53k → 23%SOCORRO COUNTY: $175k → 25%LUNA COUNTY: $57k → 26%Cuidad SWCD: $65k → 30%Cuba Soil & Water Conservation Dist: $50k → 10%Forest Stewards Guild: $113k → 12%Eddy County Detention Center: $46k → 13%CIUDAD SWCD: $74k → 14%Taos County New Mexico: $44k → 18%Lea County: $58k → 19%Village of Angel Fire: $75k → 19%DONA ANA COUNTY NEW MEXICO: $42k → 23%Socorro County New Mexico: $98k → 25%LUNA COUNTY NEW MEXICO: $42k → 26%FOREST STEWARDS GUILD: $51k → 12%Ciudad SWCD: $62k → 14%SOUTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN RC&D: $591k → 17%Socorro County: $70k → 25%Forest Stewards Guild: $42k → 12%Cuidad SWCD: $60k → 14%SOUTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN RC&D COUNCIL: $375k → 17%SAN JUAN SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION: $528k → 22%Socorro County New Mexico: $38k → 25%CUIDAD SWCD: $45k → 14%South Central Mountain RC&D: $325k → 17%San Juan County: $79k → 22%Metropolitan Detention Center Bernalillo County: $274k → 14%South Central Mountain Resource Conservation & Development Council: $285k → 17%San Juan County: $52k → 22%MDC Bernalillo County: $126k → 14%SOUTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN RC&D: $94k → 17%South Central Mountain RC&D: $88k → 17%WILDFIRE NETWORK: $83k → 12%SOUTH CENTRAL ROCKY MOUNTAIN: $50k → 17%Wildfire Network: $39k → 12%ROCKY MOUNTAIN YOUTH CORPS: $43k → 18%UPPER HONDO SOIL WATER CONSERV DIS: $50k → 17%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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.4M · 38 repeat orgs$2.3M to everyone else

38 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 32 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

38
41

Total granted

$5.4M
$1.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+104%
+4004%

Still filing today

16%
5%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $702k 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
EnvironmentYouth DevelopmentReligionScience & TechPublic Safety & DisasterEducationOther
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

  • TF
    THE FOREST STEWARDS GUILD
    7× · 2017–2024 · $315k · revenue +226%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
    2× · 2022–2024 · $192k · revenue +104%
  • RM
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN YOUTH CORPS
    3× · 2017–2019 · $100k · revenue +23%

Funded once

  • ES
    Edgewood Soil & Water Conservation District
    one grant, 2023 · $409k
  • MD
    Metropolitan Detention Center Bernalillo County
    one grant, 2024 · $274k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $126k
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
Santa Fe Forest Coalition

Educate the public on forest conservation issues in New Mexico

Environment
2
Rocky Mountain Wild

Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…

Environment
3
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps

Rocky mountain youth corps engages young people in the outdoors, inspiring them to use their strengths and potential to lead healthy, productive lives. we teach responsibility for self, community, and environment through teamwork, service,…

Youth Development
4
Quivira Coalition Inc

Through education, innovation, and collaboration, quivira works in coalition with ranchers, farmers, government agencies, and land stewards to foster resilience on working lands.

Environment
5
Catron County Citizens Groupinc

Training/create jobs/conversation

—
6
Wilderness Workshop

Wilderness workshop's mission is to protect the wilderness, water, and wildlife of western colorado's public land.

—
7
Southwest Environmental Center

To promote and protect Wildlife

—
8
Rio Bravo Restoration

Natural Resource Stewardship

Environment
9
Colorado Ag Water Alliance

Works with farmers and ranchers to address water issues around the state impacting agriculture.

Environment
10
San Juan Resource Conservation and Development Council Inc

San juan resource conservation and development council, inc.'s mission is to protect and improve the natural, cultural, historic and economic resources of the eight county area of southwest colorado.

Environment
11
San Juan Citizens Alliance

The San Juan Citizens Alliance advocates for clean air, pure water, and healthy lands - the foundations of resilient communities, ecosystems and economies in the San Juan Basin.

Environment
12
New Mexico Association of Soil and Water Conservat

To facilitate conservation of natural resources in new mexico by providing opportunities and quality support to local conservation districts through representation and leadership.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Environmental Health Monitoring and Management; the most unlike its peers is Dixon Community Fire Department. 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

8 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. 8 of the 84 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Grant Soil & Water Conservation Dis: $568,864 · OtherGrant Soil & Water Conservation DisSAN JUAN SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION: $527,780 · OtherSAN JUAN SOIL & WATER CONSERVATIONEdgewood Soil & Water Conservation District: $408,682 · OtherEdgewood Soil & Water Conservation DistrictMetropolitan Detention Center Bernalillo County: $273,965 · OtherMetropolitan Detention Center Bernalillo CountyCIUDAD SWCD: $265,283 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $245,000 · OtherWILDFIRE NETWORK: $172,924 · Other+69 more: $2,669,249 · Other+69 moreSOUTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $1,835,027 · EnvironmentSOUTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN RESO…+2 more: $29,954 · EnvironmentTHE FOREST STEWARDS GUILD: $315,309 · Youth DevelopmentCENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT: $191,829 · Science & TechROCKY MOUNTAIN YOUTH CORPS: $100,001 · ReligionDixon Community Fire Department: $51,576 · Public Safety & DisasterPARTNERS IN EDUCATION FOR THE SANTA FE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $23,500 · Education
Other$5,131,747Environment$1,864,981Youth Development$315,309Science & Tech$191,829Religion$100,001Public Safety & Disaster$51,576Education$23,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $1,835,027 over 9y, 53% of budgetTHE FOREST STEWARDS GUILD: $315,309 over 7y, 3.1% of budgetCENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT: $191,829 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN YOUTH CORPS: $100,001 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetDixon Community Fire Department: $51,576 over 3y, 44% of budgetPARTNERS IN EDUCATION FOR THE SANTA FE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $23,500 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetCHAMA PEAK LAND ALLIANCE: $14,999 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetCIMARRON WATERSHED ALLIANCE INC: $14,955 over 1y, 13% 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 SOUTH CENTRAL MOUNTAIN RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds THE FOREST STEWARDS GUILD ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT ↗
  • Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN YOUTH CORPS ↗
  • Who funds Dixon Community Fire Department ↗

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.

Santa Fe Community FoundationNM17.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Santa Fe Community Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Center for Technology and Civic Life · Institute for Responsive Government Inc · 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 New Mexico Association of Counties funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from New Mexico Association of Counties. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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.

    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 84 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 New Mexico Association of Counties’ filings →

    More from the funding graph