Skip to content
National Association of State Procurement Officals Inc at a glance

· Public charity

National Association of State Procurement Officals Inc

Promote government excellence by delivering superior procurement solutions for the benefit of the public.

$1.6M
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
10
States reached
$1.1M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Education$1.2MEmployment$772kHousing & Shelter$20kOther$0
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $1,290,055, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,603,895 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $313,840 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 · FY2024

  • $10k–50k9 grants · $178k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.1M
$20,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$178M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONALS ALLIANCE$1,112,055
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA$20,000
DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY & PROCUREMENT VIRGIN ISLANDS 161$20,000
STATE OF IDAHO$20,000
STATE OF CALIFORNIA$20,000
STATE OF DELAWARE$20,000
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES$20,000
SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES$20,000
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES$20,000
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA$18,000
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%STATE OF ARIZONA: $20k → 11%STATE OF DELAWARE: $20k → 11%State of Massachusetts: $20k → 16%STATE OF IDAHO: $20k → 8%STATE OF CALIFORNIA: $20k → 16%State of New Mexico: $20k → 12%SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES: $20k → 16%DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $18k → 14%STATE OF IOWA: $20k → 10%State of Wisconsin: $18k → 10%State of Oregon: $24k → 14%State of Connecticut: $15k → 11%State of North Carolina: $20k → 8%State of Rhode Island: $17k → 14%STATE OF UTAH: $20k → 8%STATE OF COLORADO: $20k → 12%State of Maryland: $18k → 6%MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES: $20k → 19%State of Arizona: $20k → 11%COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS: $20k → 16%State of Idaho: $16k → 8%STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA: $17k → 16%District of Columbia: $17k → 14%State of Wisconsin: $17k → 10%State of Oregon: $20k → 14%State of Connecticut: $10k → 11%State of Utah: $20k → 8%State of Colorado: $15k → 12%STATE OF MARYLAND: $16k → 19%State of Arizona: $8k → 11%Commonwealth of Massachusetts: $18k → 16%State of Idaho: $16k → 8%DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $15k → 14%STATE OF OREGON: $20k → 14%State of Utah: $18k → 8%PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONALS ALLIANCE: $1.1M → 11%Commonwealth of Massachusetts: $17k → 16%STATE OF OREGON: $20k → 14%STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS: $13k → 16%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

AK
ME
ID
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
IA
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
MD
DE
AZ
NM
NC
SC
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.

26%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$526k · 12 repeat orgs$1.5M to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
18

Total granted

$526k
$285k

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 8% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.2M went to new ones.

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

  • ND
    NC DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
    3× · 2020–2024 · $60k
  • SO
    STATE OF OREGON
    3× · 2019–2023 · $60k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK
    3× · 2019–2024 · $54k

Funded once

  • SO
    State of Oregon
    one grant, 2018 · $24k
  • SO
    State of Utah
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
  • SO
    State of New Mexico
    one grant, 2021 · $20k
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
04the grantee network

1 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2018–2024.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2018 to 2024, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 1 of the 35 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
1/1
Grantees still filing
0/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONALS ALLIANCE: $1,112,055 · EducationPROCUREMENT PROFESSIONALS ALLIANCENC DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION: $60,000 · OtherNC DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIONSTATE OF OREGON: $60,000 · OtherSTATE OF OREGONUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $53,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARKDC PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $50,400 · OtherDC PUBLIC SCHOOLSState of Arizona: $48,000 · OtherState of ArizonaState of Maine: $38,300 · OtherSTATE OF UTAH GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $38,000 · OtherSOUTH CAROLINA NETWORK: $37,000 · OtherCAPE COD COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $36,900 · OtherIdaho Public Television: $36,000 · OtherCOLORADO ENERGY OFFICE: $35,000 · OtherState of Massachusetts: $32,500 · Other+22 more: $364,787 · Other+22 more
Education$1,112,055Other$890,387

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPROCUREMENT PROFESSIONALS ALLIANCE: $1,112,055 over 1y, 100% 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 PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONALS ALLIANCE ↗

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.

Investor Protection T…Association of State …National Fish and Wil…National Assembly of …Recreational Boating …Council of State and …Educational Credit Ma…The Pew Charitable Tr…Feed the Children IncAssociation of Public…American Bar Associat…America's State Parks…
Investor Protection TrustDC24.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Investor Protection Trust · Association of State and Territorial Health Officials · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · National Assembly of State Arts Agencies Inc · Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation · Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Inc · Educational Credit Management Corporation · The Pew Charitable Trusts · Feed the Children Inc · Association of Public Health Laboratories Inc · American Bar Association · America's State Parks 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 National Association of State Procurement Officals Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Association of State Procurement Officals Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’24
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY24–24
    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.

    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 35 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on National Association of State Procurement Officals’ 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