New-Land Foundation Inc.

The New-Land Foundation is a family foundation established in 1941 by the Harvey family, which continues to hold every board seat today. President Hal Harvey and Secretary Ann Harvey lead a seven-member board that also includes Director Anne Ehrlich (longtime conservation activist and collaborator of population biologist Paul Ehrlich), Director George Perkovich PhD (a Carnegie Endowment nuclear security expert), and several Harvey family members including Joan Harvey (VP/Director), Mariah Harvey-Brown (Treasurer), Anthea Harvey-Brown, and Nelson Harvey (joined October 2022). All board members serve without compensation, signaling a lean, values-driven governance model with no professional staff overhead.

This family character has profound implications for grantseekers: the foundation is deeply mission-aligned, relationship-oriented, and operates with a very limited appetite for new entrants. The foundation openly states it prioritizes repeat grants and maintains a "very limited budget for new applicants." New organizations should treat the first application as a relationship investment, not a one-shot funding request. The most effective entry path is an introduction from a current grantee — organizations like Earthjustice ($120,000 across three cycles), Center for Biological Diversity ($95,000), Western Resource Advocates ($75,000), or Arms Control Association ($110,000) are natural connectors.

The foundation funds four areas: environment (approximately 70% of giving), peace/nuclear disarmament (~20–25%), reproductive rights (~5%), and civil rights/justice (~5%). Within environment, focus is exclusively on the American West — Rocky Mountain states from Idaho and Montana south to New Mexico, the Colorado Plateau, and Alaska. California, Oregon, and Washington organizations are explicitly excluded, despite the foundation being headquartered in San Francisco.

The giving philosophy strongly favors smaller grassroots organizations engaged in policy reform, advocacy, and litigation over direct service delivery or capital projects. General operating support is welcome, which is relatively rare and signals genuine trust in mission-aligned partners. There is no LOI stage; applicants submit a complete package directly. No personal interviews are conducted. This means the written proposal must carry full persuasive weight in a single, concise submission.

The New-Land Foundation's financial profile has been remarkably stable over more than a decade, with assets between $20M and $27.6M and annual total giving consistently in the $1.9M–$2.5M range. FY2023 shows total giving of $2,225,829 on grants paid of $1,690,000; FY2022 shows $2,450,636 total giving and $1,933,000 in grants paid; FY2021 shows $2,139,222 total giving. The 2024 filing reflects assets of $27,579,072 and revenue of $4,654,644 — a strong jump from FY2023's $2,557,639 — suggesting the 2025–2026 grant cycles may see modestly higher disbursements.

The average grant in the tracked grantee dataset is $20,064 (267 grants totaling $5,357,219). The stated typical range is $10,000–$50,000, with upper outliers reaching $100,000 for well-established, multi-year partners. The foundation's top grantee by total dollars is Carnegie Endowment for International Peace at $150,000 across three grant cycles (approximately $50,000/year), illustrating how sustained relationships unlock above-range awards. Other multi-year peace-portfolio recipients include Nautilus Institute ($120,000/3 grants), Arms Control Association ($110,000/3 grants), and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ($60,000/3 grants). On the environment side, Earthjustice ($120,000/3 grants) and Sierra Club Foundation ($105,000/3 grants) are the top anchors.

By program area, environment commands roughly 70% of annual giving (~$1.5M/year), with Colorado-based organizations receiving the most grants by state (68 instances in the dataset), followed by DC-based national organizations (43), Montana (20), New Mexico (16), California (16 — likely national organizations doing non-CA work), Idaho (15), Utah and Alaska (12 each). Peace and arms control represents an estimated 20–25% (~$440K–$550K/year). Reproductive rights and civil rights together account for approximately 5–10% (~$110K–$220K/year), with recipients including Center for Reproductive Rights ($70,000/3 grants) and Alliance for Justice ($75,000/3 grants).

The foundation's investment-income-driven model (FY2023 net investment income: $2,081,922; FY2021: $4,212,656) means giving capacity tracks market performance. No outside contributions are received; all grantmaking flows from the endowment.

The New-Land Foundation occupies a distinctive niche among mid-sized private foundations: it simultaneously funds Rocky Mountain conservation, nuclear disarmament, and reproductive rights — a combination found at very few institutions. Its closest mission peers share one or two priorities but rarely all three.

The New-Land Foundation is notably more accessible than larger conservation-focused funders like Wilburforce and Park Foundation, which operate primarily through invited relationships. Compton Foundation (also San Francisco-based) is the closest mission analog — both are family foundations with overlapping focus on environment, peace, and reproductive rights — but Compton is somewhat larger and reportedly more open to new applicants. Ploughshares Fund is the natural peer for the peace/nuclear portfolio; notably, Ploughshares itself is a New-Land grantee ($70,000 across two cycles), illustrating the tight network in this funding space. New-Land's total annual giving is modest relative to Rocky Mountain conservation peers, meaning competition among environment applicants is intense for available dollars. Organizations that can credibly demonstrate policy leverage in the West — particularly in Colorado, Montana, Idaho, or Alaska — have the strongest positional advantage.

No major press releases, new program announcements, or public leadership changes were found for the New-Land Foundation in 2025 or 2026. The foundation maintains a deliberately low public profile consistent with its family governance model and 84-year history of quiet, relationship-driven grantmaking.

The most recent confirmed activity is the filing of the 2024 Form 990 on November 17, 2025. The 2024 financials record total assets of $27,579,072 and revenue of $4,654,644 — up sharply from FY2023's $2,557,639 — most likely reflecting strong investment returns. Net investment income has been the sole meaningful revenue source across all years reviewed; the foundation receives no outside contributions.

The most significant governance change in the recent record is the April 2021 board transition: Constance Harvey stepped down as VP/Director, while Joan Harvey and Mariah Harvey-Brown assumed VP/Director and Treasurer roles respectively. Nelson Harvey joined as Director in October 2022. All transitions stayed within the Harvey family, confirming uninterrupted continuity of leadership and grantmaking values.

Director George Perkovich PhD, a senior nuclear security scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, connects the board directly to the foundation's largest single grantee ($150,000 across three grant cycles). This overlap between board expertise and the peace portfolio illustrates the foundation's intellectual approach to nuclear security grantmaking. The foundation made approximately 92 grants in 2024, consistent with prior-year cadence.

Relationship first: The single most important insight for new applicants is structural — the foundation openly prioritizes repeat grantees and maintains a very limited budget for first-time organizations. Before submitting, identify current grantees in your geographic or issue niche (Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, Wildearth Guardians, Western Resource Advocates for environment; Arms Control Association, Ploughshares Fund, Federation of American Scientists for peace; Center for Reproductive Rights for reproductive rights) and seek a referral or personal introduction to the board. A warm recommendation from a trusted grantee signals alignment before the proposal is read.

Choose your cycle strategically: The spring deadline is March 1 (decisions by June 15); the fall deadline is September 1 (decisions by December 15). Spring decisions align well with fiscal-year budget planning; fall decisions support calendar-year organizations needing early Q1 commitments. Late submissions are held for the following cycle — not rejected — but your timeline slips six months.

Narrative precision: The narrative cap is 5 pages. Lead immediately with your program area alignment (environment/public lands, peace/arms control, reproductive rights, or civil rights/justice), your geographic work area within the Rocky Mountain states or Alaska, and your policy change theory. The board reviews proposals without interviews, so the written case must be entirely self-contained. Emphasize policy outcomes, advocacy leverage, and litigation wins over service delivery headcounts.

Geographic framing: Explicitly name the states and landscapes where work occurs — Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, and Alaska are the core geography. Organizations headquartered outside these states but working in them should make that jurisdictional clarity prominent in the narrative.

Budget: General operating support requests are explicitly welcomed. For project grants, show diversified funding — the foundation favors organizations with other revenue sources, not those dependent on any single funder.

Common mistakes to avoid: Including newsletters, publications, or supplemental clippings signals unfamiliarity with the guidelines and will not strengthen your case. Requesting funds for land acquisition, conservation easements, capital campaigns, wildlife rehabilitation, publications, films, or conferences falls outside funding scope and will screen out the proposal. Applying for programs primarily serving California, Oregon, or Washington will result in rejection — the geographic restriction is firm.