Skip to content
The Careth Foundation Martin at a glance

· Private foundation

The Careth Foundation Martin

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$164k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$25k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Civil Rights$538kInternational$298kYouth Development$20kEnvironment$5k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $4k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $160k
$20,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$2.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE$25,000
GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL$25,000
GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE REGRANT P$25,000
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY$25,000
THOUSAND CURRENTS$20,000
YOUNG WOMEN EMPOWERED$15,000
WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK PAKISTAN$15,000
DAWN$10,000
WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK$3,500
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 90% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL JUSTICE: $15k → 15%INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY: $25k → 8%GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL: $65k → 16%MIDDLE EAST CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE: $8k → 10%THOUSAND CURRENTS: $20k → 10%GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $25k → 14%DAWN: $10k → 17%DEMOCRACY FOR THE ARAB WORD NOW: $10k → 20%US HUMAN RIGHTS NETWORK: $20k → 13%WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK PAKISTAN: $15k → 12%KING COUNTY EQUITY NOW: $5k → 9%LAVENDAR RIGHTS PROJECT: $1k → 9%GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL: $50k → 16%THOUSAND CURRENTS: $10k → 10%THOUSAND CURRENTS: $15k → 10%GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $20k → 14%US HUMAN RIGHTS NETWORK: $20k → 13%WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK: $4k → 12%YOUNG WOMEN EMPOWERED: $5k → 9%GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL: $30k → 16%GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $20k → 14%WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK: $25k → 12%CREATIVE JUSTICE: $5k → 9%GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL: $25k → 16%GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $20k → 14%WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK: $20k → 12%YOUNG WOMEN EMPOWERED: $15k → 9%GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL: $25k → 16%GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $20k → 14%WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK: $20k → 12%GOT GREEN: $5k → 9%INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY: $25k → 16%GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $20k → 14%WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK: $20k → 12%INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY: $20k → 16%WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK: $20k → 12%GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL: $20k → 16%WOMENS REGINAL NETWORK: $20k → 12%GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL: $20k → 16%INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY: $15k → 16%INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY: $15k → 16%INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY: $15k → 16%INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY: $15k → 16%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.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
WA
NY
MA
CA
CO
AZ
DC
GA
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$720k · 7 repeat orgs$141k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
9

Total granted

$720k
$62k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
+92%

Still filing today

43%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 52% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $79k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalYouth DevelopmentEnvironmentCrime & LegalCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • GI
    GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC
    7× · 2018–2024 · $235k · revenue +56%
  • IF
    INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY
    7× · 2018–2024 · $130k
  • GG
    GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE
    6× · 2018–2023 · $125k

Funded once

  • Alliance for Global Justice Corp
    one grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue +3%
  • NM
    NATIVE MOVEMENTgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +92%
  • DF
    DEMOCRACY FOR THE ARAB WORLD NOW INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +99%
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 in Migration Network Inc

Women in Migration Network (WIMN), an international non-governmental organization, identifies and promotes human rights-based and feminist global migration policies. We lift up and support the experiences, voices and agency of all women in…

Civil Rights
2
Gender Equality Network Usa Inc

Global Network Building for Gender Equality and Women's Rights Activists: Fostering exchange, collaboration, and mutual support for joint efforts in capacity building and technical assistance, while deepening the understanding of gender…

Civil Rights
3
Equality Now Inc

To achieve legal and systematic change that addresses violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world.

International
4
Global Initiative for Economic Social & Cultural

Together with partners around the world, GI-ESCR works to advance the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR), tackling the endemic problems of poverty, social injustice, and inequality through a human rights approach.

International
5
Washington Ethnic Studies Now

Washington Ethnic Studies Now WAESN is a multigenerational majority POC-led nonprofit advancing Ethnic Studies and racial justice in Washington. We center people of color build youth-centered leadership and learning and organize…

Education
6
Grassroots Power Project

GPP works within and across social movement sectorsto foster greater alignment around shared goals and strategies for transformational change.Through a combination of strategic consulting and political education, our team helps groups make…

Education
7
Global Voice
—
8
International Rivers Network

International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.

Environment
9
Women's Link Worldwide

A legal organization working to advance the rights of women, girls, and gender diverse people. We work on issues of reproductive rights, gender-based violence, climate, and racial justice in East Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the…

Civil Rights
10
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
11
Rules Foundation

/The Rules is a global network of activists, organizers, designers, coders, researchers, writers and others dedicated to changing the rules that create inequality, climate change, and poverty around the world.

—
12
Women's Earth and Climate Action Network

To strengthen and build womens leadership as an essential component in solutions that address climate change mitigation and adaptation, climate justice, human rights and environmental degradation.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Grassroots International Inc; the most unlike its peers is Womens Regional Network. 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

13 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. 13 of the 21 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/13
Grantees still filing
7/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY: $130,000 · OtherINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACYGRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $125,000 · OtherGRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICEIndividual grant recipient: $125,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE REGRANT P: $25,000 · OtherGRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE REGRANT PWOMENS REGINAL NETWORK PAKISTAN: $15,000 · Other+5 more: $26,500 · Other+5 moreGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $235,000 · InternationalGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INCTHOUSAND CURRENTS: $45,000 · InternationalTHOUSAND CURRENTSUS Human Rights Network: $40,000 · InternationalUS Human Rights NetworkAlliance for Global Justice Corp: $15,000 · International+2 more: $18,000 · InternationalGRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $25,000 · Civil RightsYOUNG WOMEN EMPOWERED: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentNATIVE MOVEMENT: $10,000 · Community ImprovementGot Green: $5,000 · EnvironmentLavender Rights Project: $1,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$446,500International$353,000Civil Rights$25,000Youth Development$20,000Community Improvement$10,000Environment$5,000Crime & Legal$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $235,000 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetTHOUSAND CURRENTS: $45,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetUS Human Rights Network: $40,000 over 2y, 6.0% of budgetGRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetYOUNG WOMEN EMPOWERED: $20,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetAlliance for Global Justice Corp: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNATIVE MOVEMENT: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDEMOCRACY FOR THE ARAB WORLD NOW INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetMIDDLE EAST CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE: $8,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGot Green: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWomens Regional Network: $3,500 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetLavender Rights Project: $1,000 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.

  • Who funds GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
  • Who funds THOUSAND CURRENTS ↗
  • Who funds US Human Rights Network ↗
  • Who funds GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG WOMEN EMPOWERED ↗
  • Who funds Alliance for Global Justice Corp ↗
  • Who funds NATIVE MOVEMENT ↗
  • Who funds DEMOCRACY FOR THE ARAB WORLD NOW INC ↗
  • Who funds MIDDLE EAST CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds Got Green ↗
  • Who funds Womens Regional Network ↗
  • Who funds Lavender Rights Project ↗

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.

The Satterberg Founda…Amalgamated Charitabl…Paypal Charitable Giv…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Satterberg Foundation IncWA13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Satterberg Foundation Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 The Careth Foundation Martin funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Careth Foundation Martin. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 21 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Careth Foundation Martin’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