Skip to content
The Maryland 4-H Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Maryland 4-H Foundation Inc

The mission of the maryland 4-h foundation, inc.

$253k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$82k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$290kFood & Nutrition$162kScience & Tech$147kEnvironment$101kHealth$19kPhilanthropy$18kReligion$7kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $112,085, the rows itemized in this filing. The $253,185 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $141,100 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 $10k4 grants · $30k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $82k
$8,283
Median grant
1
States reached
$9.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND$81,734
Individual grant recipient$9,597
CARROLL COUNTY EAC$8,283
MID-SHORE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$6,311
CHARLES COUNTY EAC$6,160
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 (FY25–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MID-SHORE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $6k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $82k → 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.

63%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$466k · 7 repeat orgs$277k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue 0% since the first grant, against -99% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
9

Total granted

$466k
$268k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
-99%

Still filing today

43%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK
    4× · 2017–2025 · $188k
  • MC
    Montgomery County Extension Advisory Council Inc
    5× · 2017–2024 · $148k · revenue -97%
  • CC
    CARROLL COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INC
    5× · 2018–2025 · $40k

Funded once

  • FC
    FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INC
    one grant, 2019 · $119k · revenue -99% · 90% of their budget
  • U4
    UMD 4-H STATE OFFICE
    one grant, 2021 · $65k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $38k
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
Harry R Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology

The Center brings together diverse interests from the agricultural, forestry, and environmental communities for the purpose of retaining Maryland's working landscapes and the industries they support while protecting and improving the…

Food & Nutrition
2
Jo Daviess County Extension & 4-H F
Food & Nutrition
3
Piedmont Master Gardeners

Education related to horticulture.

Environment
4
Harford County Extension Advisory Council Inc

To assist and advise in establishing program priorities - including new initiatives in agriculture, horticulture, 4-h and youth, extension home economics, and other related programs and activities that would be beneficial to the citizens…

—
5
Montgomery County Lands Trust Inc

Land Conservation and Preservation.

Environment
6
Montgomery Botanical Center
—
7
Center for Applied Horticultural Research
—
8
Bay Area Gardeners Association

Inform and update members with seminaries

—
9
Master Gardener Association

Refer to schedule O

Environment
10
Middle Patuxent Environmental Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Spalding County EXTENSION4-H

Research based information and education

—
12
Scott County Agricultural Horticultural Association Inc
Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Baltimore County Extension Advisory Council Inc; the most unlike its peers is Community Foundation of Carroll County. 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 19 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)
6/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $187,700 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARKMontgomery County Extension Advisory Council Inc: $147,726 · OtherMontgomery County Extension Advisory Council IncFREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INC: $118,657 · OtherFREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INCUMD 4-H STATE OFFICE: $65,017 · OtherUMD 4-H STATE OFFICECARROLL COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INC: $40,229 · OtherCARROLL COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INCIndividual grant recipient: $37,552 · Other+10 more: $110,029 · Other+10 moreBALTIMORE COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INC: $36,616 · Food & NutritionCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF CARROLL COUNTY: $11,685 · PhilanthropyMID SHORE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $6,311 · Philanthropy
Other$706,910Food & Nutrition$36,616Philanthropy$17,996

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 budgetMontgomery County Extension Advisory Council Inc: $147,726 over 5y, 13% of budgetFREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INC: $118,657 over 1y, 90% of budgetBALTIMORE COUNTY EXTENSION ADVISORY COUNCIL INC: $36,616 over 3y, 12% of budgetCharles County Extension Advisory Council Inc: $14,080 over 2y, 32% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF CARROLL COUNTY: $11,685 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMID SHORE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $6,311 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Maryland 4-H Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Maryland 4-H Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    5get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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 19 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 Maryland 4-H’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