Skip to content

· Public charity

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy

To preserve the golden gate national parks, enhance the park visitor experience, and build a community dedicated to conserving the parks for the future.

$905k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$763k
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 2024.

Recreation & Sports$85MArts & Culture$23MEnvironment$1.6MPublic Benefit$150kAnimals$31k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $141k
  • $250k+1 grant · $763k
$763,494
Median grant
2
States reached
$87M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE$763,494
THE PRESIDIO TRUST$141,161
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 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%PHILANTHROPI CHARITABLE: $150k → 22%SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $20k → 7%LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE: $115k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKLEY FOUNDATION: $28k → 10%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $31.9M → 10%REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $11k → 16%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $7.2M → 14%THE STEWARDSHIP NETWORK: $959k → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $29.0M → 10%REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $11k → 16%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $5.1M → 14%THE STEWARDSHIP NETWORK: $320k → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $15.0M → 10%REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $9k → 16%National Park Service: $4.2M → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $9.2M → 10%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $2.8M → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $141k → 10%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $1.7M → 14%THE PRESIDIO TRUST: $112k → 10%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $931k → 14%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $763k → 14%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $696k → 14%NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $418k → 14%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 10% of Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancylessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$111M · 5 repeat orgs$197k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
4

Total granted

$111M
$197k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+43%

Still filing today

40%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EducationEnvironmentReligionOther
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

  • PT
    PRESIDIO TR
    6× · 2020–2025 · $85M
  • NP
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $24M
  • TS
    The Stewardship Network
    2× · 2021–2022 · $1.3M · revenue -51% · 52% of their budget

Funded once

  • LT
    LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOEgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $115k · revenue +43%
  • MO
    MARIN OPEN SPACE TRUSTgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $34k · revenue +100% · 53% of their budget
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $28k · revenue -36%
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
05the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 10 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
3/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PRESIDIO TR: $85,382,222 · OtherPRESIDIO TRNATIONAL PARK SERVICE: $23,784,159 · OtherNATIONAL PARK SERVICE+2 more: $51,000 · OtherThe Stewardship Network: $1,279,308 · Environment+1 more: $34,000 · EnvironmentTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $145,500 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $28,000 · EducationPHILANTHROPI CHARITABLE: $150,000 · Public BenefitLEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE: $115,000 · Religion
Other$109,217,381Environment$1,313,308Education$173,500Public Benefit$150,000Religion$115,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetThe Stewardship Network: $1,279,308 over 2y, 52% of budgetPHILANTHROPI CHARITABLE: $150,000 over 1y, 8.6% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $145,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetLEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE: $115,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetMARIN OPEN SPACE TRUST: $34,000 over 1y, 53% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION: $28,000 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 The Stewardship Network ↗
  • Who funds PHILANTHROPI CHARITABLE ↗
  • Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE ↗
  • Who funds MARIN OPEN SPACE TRUST ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. 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%4%8%11%15%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 10 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 Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy’s filings →

    More from the funding graph