Skip to content

· Public charity

Fitlot Inc

To strengthen people and thier communities by supporting the creation and activation of public outdoor fitness parks and programs.

$658k
Granted FY2022
1
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$7k
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, FY2020 to 2022.

Recreation & Sports$108k
02FY2022 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $7,200, the rows itemized in this filing. The $658,226 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $651,026 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.
$7,200
Median grant
1
States reached
$6k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JEFFERSON PARISH PARKS & RECR$7,200
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 (FY20–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 69% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CITY OF LINCOLN-PARKS AND RECREATION: $4k → 10%NAMPA RECREATION CENTER: $4k → 11%ST PAUL PARKS & RECREATION: $4k → 14%CITY OF EAST HELENA: $4k → 9%SACRAMENTO PARKS & RECREATION YOUTH PARKS & COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT: $3k → 12%PRINCEVILLE AT HANALEI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $4k → 9%CITY OF LAS CRUCES: $4k → 23%HISTORIC GREENWOOD DISTRICT MAINSTREET: $4k → 15%FLORENCE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: $4k → 20%DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION: $4k → 14%CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS: $4k → 9%SHAWNEE COUNTY PARKS RECREATION: $4k → 14%KANSAS CITY MO PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT: $4k → 15%CITY OF LA CROSSE PARKS: $4k → 12%WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT: $4k → 15%CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE: $4k → 8%BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS: $4k → 12%CITY OF CHARLESTON: $4k → 18%CITY OF PERTH AMBOY: $4k → 8%VIRGINIA BEACH PARKS & RECREATION: $4k → 10%CITY OF CHEYENNE: $4k → 10%BURLINGTON PARKS RECREATION & WATERFRONT: $4k → 10%JEFFERSON PARISH PARKS & RECR: $7k → 15%NORD FOUNDATION: $10k → 23%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

VT
ID
MT
MN
WI
OR
WY
IA
IN
NJ
CA
UT
NE
MO
WV
VA
NM
KS
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
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 field
04the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 25 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
2/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JEFFERSON PARISH PARKS & RECR: $7,200 · OtherJEFFERSON PARISH PARKS & RECRDC PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF BURLINGTON: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF LAS CRUCES: $4,010 · OtherCity of Perth Amboy: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF FLORENCE: $4,010 · OtherPRINCEVILLE AT HANALEI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $4,010 · OtherTHE NAMPA FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER: $4,010 · OtherSHAWNEE COUNTY: $4,010 · OtherSPRING HILL CEMETERY PARK COMM: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF KANSAS CITY MISSOURI: $4,010 · OtherCity of East Helena: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS CEDAR RAPIDS PUBLIC LIBRARY: $4,010 · OtherWillamalane Park and Rec Dist: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF LINCOLN NEBRASKA: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF LA CROSSE PARKS REC & FOR: $4,010 · OtherVIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF CHEYENNE: $4,010 · OtherCITY OF SAINT PAUL: $4,010 · OtherCity of Ft Wayne Parks: $4,010 · OtherMUNICIPIO AUTNOMO DE GUAYNABO: $4,010 · Other+1 more: $2,660 · OtherNEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsNEW ORLEAN…HISTORIC GREENWOOD DISTRICT MAIN ST: $4,010 · Community Improvement
Other$94,070Recreation & Sports$10,000Community Improvement$4,010

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetPRINCEVILLE AT HANALEI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $4,010 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHISTORIC GREENWOOD DISTRICT MAIN ST: $4,010 over 1y, 5.9% 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 NEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PRINCEVILLE AT HANALEI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds HISTORIC GREENWOOD DISTRICT MAIN ST ↗

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.

National Recreation and Park AssociationVA49.4× affinity22 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Recreation and Park Association · Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund Inc · National League of Cities Institute Inc · AARP · The Recycling Partnership Inc · Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Inc · Urban Sustainability Directors Network · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Center for Technology and Civic Life · American Kennel Club Companion Animal Recovery Corporation · Johns Hopkins University · Good Sports 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 Fitlot Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Fitlot Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24
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
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Fitlot Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Fitlot Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 25 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Fitlot’s filings →

    More from the funding graph