Skip to content
National Association of Regional Councils at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

National Association of Regional Councils

As a national public interest organization, narc will work with & through its members to (1) shape federal policy that recognizes the increased value of local intergovernmental cooperation (2) advocate effectively for the role of regional councils in the coordination, planning and delivery of current future federal programs (3) provide…

$495k
Granted FY2018
12
Grants FY2018
7
States reached
$106k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.

Community Improvement$593kEnvironment$445kPublic Benefit$113kOther$0
02FY2018 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $454,228, the rows itemized in this filing. The $494,705 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $40,477 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 · FY2018

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $175k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $266k
$26,180
Median grant
7
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
meister consultants group in$106,084
Electrification Coalition$93,687
mid america regional council$66,719
metropolitan energy center$49,549
Metropolitan area planning co$37,807
clean communities of central$26,180
Tucson Regional Clean Cities$19,496
North Central Texas council$15,210
Metropolitan Washington counc$14,987
utah clean cities$11,380
American Forests$7,557
pima association of governmen$5,572
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 (FY17–18) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%pima association of governmen: $28k → 15%Metropolitan area planning co: $47k → 16%clean communities of central: $33k → 14%North Central Texas council: $55k → 11%Colorado Energy Group inc: $12k → 14%American Forests: $8k → 14%mid america regional council: $181k → 15%utah clean cities: $11k → 8%clean fuels ohio: $11k → 15%the primax group: $21k → 16%Yborra & Associates LLC: $31k → 6%Tucson Regional Clean Cities: $23k → 15%Metropolitan area planning co: $38k → 16%clean communities of central: $26k → 14%North Central Texas council: $15k → 11%National Asssociation for the: $59k → 14%mid america regional council: $67k → 15%utah clean cities: $9k → 8%Tucson Regional Clean Cities: $19k → 15%meister consultants group in: $106k → 16%Electrification Coalition: $94k → 14%metropolitan energy center: $50k → 15%pima association of governmen: $6k → 15%meister consultants group in: $54k → 16%Metropolitan Washington counc: $65k → 14%metropolitan energy center: $44k → 15%Electrification Coalition: $47k → 14%Metropolitan Washington counc: $15k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
MA
OH
UT
MO
MD
AZ
DC
TX
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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 11 repeat orgs$142k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +193% since the first grant, against -67% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
5

Total granted

$1.0M
$134k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+193%
-67%

Still filing today

64%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
EnvironmentPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementEducationOther
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

  • MR
    MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES CORPORATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $247k · revenue +193%
  • EC
    ELECTRIFICATION COALITION FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $141k · revenue +325%
  • ME
    METROPOLITAN ENERGY CENTER INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $93k · revenue +344%

Funded once

  • NA
    National Asssociation for the
    one grant, 2017 · $59k
  • YA
    Yborra & Associates LLC
    one grant, 2017 · $31k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $21k
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
Texas Clean Energy Coalition
—
2
Greater Washington Region Clean Cities Coalition

The greater washington region clean cities coalition (gwrccc) is public-private partnership that promotes the use of clean, and alternative american transportation fuels for homeland security and improved air quality.

Environment
3
Drive Clean Colorado

Drive clean colorado is a non-profit coalition working collaboratively with its members to accelerate the equitable adoption of clean transportation in the state.

Environment
4
Northern Colorado Clean Cities

?Northern Colorado Clean Cities NCCC is a 501c3 organization sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Clean Cities Program. As part of the DOE's Vehicle Technologies Program Clean Cities advances the nation's economic environmental and…

—
5
Nw Energy Coalition

The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…

—
6
Clean Fuels Michigan

To accelerate the transition to clean transportation in michigan. we advocate for the suite of alternative fuels including biofuels, hydrogen, propane, natural gas, and electric vehicles.

Community Improvement
7
Circum-Pacific Council for Energy and Mineral Resources
—
8
Fresh Energy

Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.

Environment
9
Coalition for Green Capital D/B/a American Green Bank Consortium

Cgc operates as a nonprofit financial institution that invests directly and through partners to transform financial markets by using public and private investing to accelerate the deployment of projects that strengthen the grid, reduce…

Environment
10
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
11
Transportation Energy Partnership

Conduct research data capture and analysis deliver education training and outreach related to alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles for the purpose of displacing petroleum consumption reducing vehicle emissions and…

—
12
Center for Clean Air Policy

To support every step of climate action, from ambition to implementation.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Electrification Coalition Foundation; the most unlike its peers is North Central Texas Council of Governments Foundation Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 17 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE CADMUS GROUP LLC: $159,724 · OtherTHE CADMUS GROUP LLCMetropolitan area planning co: $84,639 · OtherMetropolitan area planning coNational Asssociation for the: $59,345 · OtherNational Asssociation for theclean communities of central: $58,890 · Otherclean communities of centralTucson Regional Clean Cities: $42,331 · OtherTucson Regional Clean CitiesPIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS: $33,355 · OtherPIMA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTSYborra & Associates LLC: $30,751 · OtherYborra & Associates LLCIndividual grant recipient: $21,450 · Other+1 more: $11,765 · OtherELECTRIFICATION COALITION FOUNDATION: $141,118 · EnvironmentELECTRIFICATION COALITIO…METROPOLITAN ENERGY CENTER INC: $93,139 · EnvironmentMETROPOLITAN ENERGY CENT…CLEAN FUELS OHIO: $10,968 · Environment+1 more: $7,557 · EnvironmentMID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES CORPORATION: $247,424 · Community ImprovementMID-AMERICA REGIONAL CO…METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS: $80,045 · Public BenefitMETROPOLITAN W…NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOUNDATION INC: $70,204 · Public BenefitNORTH CENTRAL …UTAH CLEAN CITIES: $20,006 · Education
Other$502,250Environment$252,782Community Improvement$247,424Public Benefit$150,249Education$20,006

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES CORPORATION: $247,424 over 2y, 7.7% of budgetELECTRIFICATION COALITION FOUNDATION: $141,118 over 2y, 6.4% of budgetMETROPOLITAN ENERGY CENTER INC: $93,139 over 2y, 7.5% of budgetMETROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS: $80,045 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUTAH CLEAN CITIES: $20,006 over 2y, 5.7% of budgetCLEAN FUELS OHIO: $10,968 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetAmerican Forests: $7,557 over 1y, 0.1% 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 National Association of Regional Councils funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Association of Regional Councils. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    1report 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.

    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 17 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $375 of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2018, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on National Association of Regional Councils’ 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