Skip to content
Mat-Su Trails & Parks Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Mat-Su Trails & Parks Foundation

To promote trails and parks in the Matanuska Susitna Borough

$673k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$169k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Recreation & Sports$1.8MEnvironment$342kPublic Benefit$240kCommunity Improvement$159kArts & Culture$104kPublic Safety & Disaster$66kAnimals$51kYouth Development$50kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $197k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $510k
$44,478
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Alaska Trails$168,815
Individual grant recipient$133,497
Hatcher Alpine Xperience$95,500
Student Conservation Association$62,332
Individual grant recipient$50,000
Willow Area Community Organization$44,478
City of Wasilla$37,500
Hatcher Pass Avalanche Center$34,291
Mat-Su Ski Club$34,200
Meadow Lakes Community Development$25,500
Valley Mountain Bikers and Hikers$11,230
Alaskans for Palmer Hay Flats$10,234
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MAT-SU BOROUGH: $140k → 10%PETERSVILLE COMMUNITY: $65k → 10%STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $38k → 7%Mat-Su Borough: $133k → 10%PETERSVILLE COMMUNITY: $35k → 10%STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $34k → 7%Mat-su Ski Club: $101k → 10%Student Conservation Association: $62k → 10%STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $26k → 7%Hatcher Alpine Xperience: $96k → 10%Student Conservation Association: $20k → 10%Matanuska-Susitna Borough: $92k → 10%MAT-SU TENNIS CLUB: $90k → 10%Hatcher Alpine Xperience: $60k → 10%MAT-SU BOROUGH: $47k → 10%FRIENDS OF STATE PARK MAT-SU: $47k → 10%VALLEY MOUNTAIN BIKERS AND HIKERS: $41k → 10%HATCHER PASS APLINE XPERIENCE: $40k → 10%ALASKA STATE PARKS: $39k → 10%VALLEY MOUNTAIN BIKERS AND HIKERS: $36k → 10%Hatcher Pass Avalanche Center: $34k → 10%Mat-Su Ski Club: $34k → 10%VALLEY MOUNTAIN BIKERS AND HIKERS: $34k → 10%LAKE LOUISE SNOWMACHINE CLUB: $25k → 10%ALASKA STATE PARKS: $21k → 10%United Way of Matanuska Susitna Borough: $20k → 10%Alaska State Parks: $75k → 10%MAT-SU BOROUGH: $58k → 10%Alaska State Parks: $52k → 10%FISH: $40k → 10%CITY OF WASILLA: $40k → 10%Alaskans for Palmer Hay Flats: $40k → 10%City of Wasilla: $38k → 10%City of Wasilla: $35k → 10%CITY OF WASILLA: $35k → 10%Meadow Lakes Community Development: $26k → 10%Meadow Lakes Community Development Inc: $25k → 10%Valley Mountain Bikers and Hikers: $21k → 10%Valley Mountain Bikers and Hikers: $20k → 10%MID VALLEY TRAIL CLUB: $19k → 10%CURRY RIDGE RIDERS INC: $32k → 10%UPPER SUSITNA SWCD: $30k → 10%HATCHER PASS AVALANCHE CENTER: $20k → 10%City of Houston: $50k → 10%CITY OF HOUSTON: $20k → 10%YOUTH FORUMWACO: $50k → 10%Willow Area Community Organization: $44k → 10%WILLOW AREA COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION: $33k → 10%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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.4M · 17 repeat orgs$653k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +101% since the first grant, against +52% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
21

Total granted

$2.4M
$653k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+101%
+52%

Still filing today

47%
48%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Recreation & SportsEnvironmentPublic Safety & DisasterPhilanthropyOther
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

  • AT
    Alaska Trails
    6× · 2018–2025 · $348k · revenue +646%
  • HA
    HATCHER ALPINE XPERIENCE
    4× · 2020–2025 · $210k · revenue +588%
  • MS
    Matsu Ski Club
    3× · 2020–2025 · $144k · revenue +126% · 35% of their budget

Funded once

  • MS
    Matanuska Susitn
    one grant, 2024 · $92k
  • MT
    MAT-SU TENNIS CLUB
    one grant, 2022 · $90k
  • YF
    YOUTH FORUMWACO
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
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
Kachemak Nordic Ski Club Inc

Maintain and groom over non-motorized trails in the Homer area for skiing, snowshoeing, and hiking. Sponsor ski events and facilitate programssuch as public school sports

Recreation & Sports
2
Presque Isle Sno-Trails

Trail maintenance - department of natural resources

—
3
Homer Cycling Club

Homer Cycling Clubs mission is to promote bicycling as environmentally friendly healthy and enjoyable pursuit within the Homer area and beyond. This includes the promoting construction of mountain bike trails in the area and maintenance of…

Recreation & Sports
4
Alpine Trails Foundation

Trail maintenance

—
5
Anchorage Ski Club Inc

To provide access, facilities, recreation, and educational opportunities within the alpine environment of Chugach State Park.

Recreation & Sports
6
Munising Bay Trail Network

Create and maintain a non motorized multi-use trail system that provides a place to experience mountain biking, hiking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, trail running and more in a natural environment while providing the opportunity to…

Recreation & Sports
7
Sugarbush Trail Association Inc

To maintain and operate a network of 75 Km of Nordic ski trails in the Superior National Forest in Tofte, Minnesota. The trail system is a major tourism draw in the winter.

Recreation & Sports
8
Beartooth Trails

To promote non-motorized trails along the Beartooth Front.

Recreation & Sports
9
Methow Valley Sports Trail Association
Environment
10
Pulaski Users Group Inc

Trail Maintenance on Public Lands

Environment
11
Range Trail Committee

Promote the sport of snowmobiling.

—
12
Snow Valley Riders Inc

Snowmobile trail maintenance

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lake Louise Snowmachine Club Inc; the most unlike its peers is Rotary International Club of Susitna. 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

18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 38 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
13/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $421,703 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $197,487 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCITY OF WASILLA: $147,500 · OtherCITY OF WASILLAWillow Area Community Organization Inc: $128,373 · OtherWillow Area Community Organization IncIndividual grant recipient: $100,000 · OtherTHE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $97,070 · OtherMatanuska Susitn: $92,375 · OtherMAT-SU TENNIS CLUB: $90,000 · OtherStudent Conservation Association: $82,332 · OtherMOUNTAINEERING CLUB OF ALASKA INC: $76,890 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $69,500 · Other+13 more: $376,258 · Other+13 moreAlaska Trails: $348,305 · Recreation & SportsAlaska TrailsHATCHER ALPINE XPERIENCE: $210,250 · Recreation & SportsHATCHER ALPINE XPERIENCEValley Mountain Bikers and Hikers: $162,811 · Recreation & SportsValley Mountain Bikers and HikersMatsu Ski Club: $143,735 · Recreation & SportsMatsu Ski ClubFRIENDS OF STATE PARKS MAT SU: $46,664 · Recreation & SportsHATCHER PASS SNOW RIDERS: $40,000 · Recreation & Sports+3 more: $53,750 · Recreation & Sports+3 moreTHE GREAT LAND TRUST INC: $35,000 · EnvironmentCURRY RIDGE RIDERS INC: $32,000 · EnvironmentCoalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives: $8,200 · EnvironmentHATCHER PASS AVALANCHE CENTER INC: $65,935 · Public Safety & DisasterUNITED WAY OF MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH: $20,000 · Philanthropy
Other$1,879,488Recreation & Sports$1,005,515Environment$75,200Public Safety & Disaster$65,935Philanthropy$20,000

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 budgetAlaska Trails: $348,305 over 6y, 6.0% of budgetHATCHER ALPINE XPERIENCE: $210,250 over 4y, 5.0% of budgetValley Mountain Bikers and Hikers: $162,811 over 6y, 55% of budgetMatsu Ski Club: $143,735 over 3y, 35% of budgetWillow Area Community Organization Inc: $128,373 over 6y, 47% of budgetTHE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $97,070 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHATCHER PASS AVALANCHE CENTER INC: $65,935 over 3y, 24% of budgetFRIENDS OF STATE PARKS MAT SU: $46,664 over 1y, 56% of budgetTHE GREAT LAND TRUST INC: $35,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetCURRY RIDGE RIDERS INC: $32,000 over 1y, 52% of budgetLake Louise Snowmachine Club Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetUNITED WAY OF MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH: $20,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetMAT-SU 2024 ARCTIC WINTER GAMES HOS: $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCoalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives: $8,200 over 1y, 4.7% 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 Alaska Trails ↗
  • Who funds HATCHER ALPINE XPERIENCE ↗
  • Who funds Valley Mountain Bikers and Hikers ↗
  • Who funds Matsu Ski Club ↗
  • Who funds Willow Area Community Organization Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds HATCHER PASS AVALANCHE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF STATE PARKS MAT SU ↗
  • Who funds HATCHER PASS SNOW RIDERS ↗
  • Who funds ROTARY INTERNATIONAL CLUB OF SUSITNA ↗
  • Who funds THE GREAT LAND TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds CURRY RIDGE RIDERS INC ↗
  • Who funds Lake Louise Snowmachine Club Inc ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH ↗
  • Who funds BIG LAKE TRAILS INC ↗
  • Who funds MAT-SU 2024 ARCTIC WINTER GAMES HOS ↗
  • Who funds Denali Nordic Ski Club Inc ↗
  • Who funds Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives ↗

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.

Rasmuson FoundationValley Hospital Assoc…The Alaska Community …Mta Foundation IncMatanuska Electric As…Amazonsmile Foundation
Rasmuson FoundationAK35.3× affinity15 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Rasmuson Foundation · Valley Hospital Association Inc Dba Mat-Su Health Foundation · The Alaska Community Foundation · Mta Foundation Inc · Matanuska Electric Association Charitable Foundation · 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 Mat-Su Trails & Parks Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mat-Su Trails & Parks Foundation. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Mat-Su Trails & Parks Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Mat-Su Trails & Parks Foundation 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 38 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 Mat-Su Trails & Parks’ 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