Skip to content
National Recreation and Park Association at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

National Recreation and Park Association

The NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION (nrpa) is the leading not-for-profit organization dedicated to building strong, vibrant and resilient communities through the power of parks and recreation.

$1.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
81
Grants FY2025still arriving
36
States reached
$85k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Recreation & Sports$14MPublic Benefit$9.7MEnvironment$1.7MCommunity Improvement$1.1MEducation$658kHealth$559kArts & Culture$426kYouth Development$330kOther$0
02FY2025 · 81 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 81 grants below total $1,611,132, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,789,925 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $178,793 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k14 grants · $105k
  • $10k–50k65 grants · $1.4M
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $135k
$18,893
Median grant
36
States reached
$28M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MOUNT AIRY PARKS AND RECREATION$84,515
CITY OF AUBURN$50,738
TOWN OF WARREN$47,362
CALVERT COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION$45,554
CARTER COUNTY DRUG PREVENTION COALITION$42,905
TUALATIN HILLS PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT$41,568
NORTHEAST OPPORTUNITIES FOR WELLNESS INC$35,155
ASHEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION$34,728
CITY OF MONROE$32,396
WESTERN WELLNESS FOUNDATION$32,068
ARIZONA YOUTH PARTNERSHIP$31,937
CLARK COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION$31,796
CITY OF IRVINE$31,471
CITY OF PORTLAND PARKS RECREATION AND FACILITIES$31,367
MECHANICSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT$30,346
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–21, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 50% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%YMCA OF GREATER ERIE: $10k → 15%KENT YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES: $10k → 9%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
VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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.

68%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$20M · 166 repeat orgs$9.2M to everyone else

166 repeat relationships: 39 still active in FY2025, 127 since wound down; 42 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

166
225

Total granted

$20M
$8.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+10%
+22%

Still filing today

16%
15%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $584k 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
EnvironmentRecreation & SportsPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementEducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • PP
    PARK PRIDE INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $833k · revenue +22%
  • PP
    PITTSBURGH PARKS CONSERVANCY
    2× · 2017–2018 · $463k · revenue +20%
  • EL
    ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING FOR KIDS
    2× · 2017–2018 · $463k · revenue +10% · 30% of their budget

Funded once

  • TL
    TAOS LAND TRUST
    one grant, 2018 · $575k · revenue -35% · 64% of their budget
  • CO
    CITY OF LAWSON
    one grant, 2021 · $250k
  • CO
    CITY OF FRANKLIN IN
    one grant, 2021 · $250k
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
Portland Parks Conservancy

The Portland Parks Conservancy's mission is to enhance Portland's parks and recreational programs by raising philantropic capital and engaging the community.

Human Services
2
Greenspace Dallas

Improving public and park land communities using educational and vocational training for underserved youth.

Environment
3
Washington Parks & People

To protect, restore and promote sound park management in the Washington DC metropolitan area. (See Continuation on Schedule O)

Community Improvement
4
The Forest Park Conservancy

To protect and restore the ecological health of forest park and marquam nature park, maintain and enhance their extensive trails networks, promote equitable access, and inspire diverse community appreciation and stewardship of these iconic…

Environment
5
Greater Metro Parks Foundation dba Tacoma Parks Foundation

Greater Metro Parks Foundation's mission is to cultivate a community invested in providing parks and recreation access to all.Its vision is plentiful, equitable access to nature, play, and recreation in Tacoma.

Unclassified
6
Cincinnati Parks Foundation

To build broad based private/public partnerships supporting the conservation and enhancement of our city's parks and greenspaces.

Recreation & Sports
7
Greenbelt Conservancy Inc

The Greenbelt Conservancy (the "Greenbelt"), the second of New York City's Flagship Parks, consists of over 2,800 acres of public and privatge land (greater than the combined acreage of Central Park and Prospect Park) in the center of…

Environment
8
Guadalupe River Park Conservancy

Guadalupe River Park Conservancy provides community leadership for the development and active use of Guadalupe River Park & Garden through education, advocacy and stewardship.

Environment
9
Detroit Parks Coalition

The detroit parks coalition ("the coalition") is an alliance of community members and parks leaders working to support healthy, equitable, and vibrant parks in detroit. the coalition develops and facilitates city-wide parks programming,…

Recreation & Sports
10
The Oaks Park Association

To acquire, own, develop, preserve, beautify, reconstruct, restore, maintain, and operate a public park and public recreation facility, open to the general public as a community service, to be used to enhance recreation opportunities,…

Recreation & Sports
11
Buffalo Bayou Partnership Inc

See Schedule OEstablished in 1986, Buffalo Bayou Partnership (BBP) is the non-profit transforming and revitalizing Buffalo Bayou. The organization's geographic focus is the 10-square mile stretch of the bayou that flows from Shepherd…

Environment
12
Pierce Park Nature Preserve

To improve the ecological health of Pierce Park in the City of Flint

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Park Pride Inc; the most unlike its peers is Community Power New Mexico. 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

83 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. 83 of the 433 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.

6
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
29
Early backer (in before they grew)
79/83
Grantees still filing
50/83
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

+176 more: $18,477,024 · Other+176 morePARK PRIDE INC: $832,500 · Recreation & SportsPARK PRIDE IN…NEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $498,800 · Recreation & SportsNEW ORLEANS R…PITTSBURGH PARKS CONSERVANCY: $462,500 · Recreation & SportsPITTSBURGH PA…PARKS AND PEOPLE INC: $462,500 · Recreation & SportsPARKS AND PEO…PARKS FOUNDATION OF MIAMI-DADEINC: $155,000 · Recreation & SportsINDIANAPOLIS PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $110,000 · Recreation & SportsPhoenix Parks Foundation: $105,000 · Recreation & Sports+5 more: $320,847 · Recreation & Sports+5 moreTAOS LAND TRUST: $575,000 · EnvironmentHEARTLAND CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $240,000 · EnvironmentRIVERSIDE PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $72,500 · EnvironmentFriends of Mill Ridge Park: $52,073 · EnvironmentBUFFALO NIAGARA RIVER LAND TRUST INC: $50,000 · EnvironmentTHE FRIENDS OF THE WISSAHICKON INC: $47,000 · EnvironmentANCHORAGE PARK FOUNDATION: $40,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING FOR KIDS: $462,500 · Youth DevelopmentCONNECT: $438,800 · PhilanthropyBEREA COLLEGE: $255,000 · EducationTHE ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH EQUITY: $150,000 · EducationCivicwell: $230,000 · Public Benefit
Other$18,477,024Recreation & Sports$2,947,147Environment$1,076,573Youth Development$462,500Philanthropy$438,800Education$405,000Public Benefit$230,000

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPARK PRIDE INC: $832,500 over 3y, 8.4% of budgetTAOS LAND TRUST: $575,000 over 1y, 64% of budgetNEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $498,800 over 5y, 38% of budgetPITTSBURGH PARKS CONSERVANCY: $462,500 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING FOR KIDS: $462,500 over 2y, 30% of budgetPARKS AND PEOPLE INC: $462,500 over 2y, 7.8% of budgetBEREA COLLEGE: $255,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetHEARTLAND CONSERVATION ALLIANCE: $240,000 over 2y, 30% of budgetCivicwell: $230,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetCARTER COUNTY DRUG PREVENTION COALITION: $180,530 over 4y, 14% of budgetPARKS FOUNDATION OF MIAMI-DADEINC: $155,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetTHE ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH EQUITY: $150,000 over 1y, 8.1% of budgetDALLAS PARKS FOUNDATION: $120,499 over 2y, 22% of budgetINDIANAPOLIS PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $110,000 over 3y, 4.2% of budgetPhoenix Parks Foundation: $105,000 over 3y, 36% of budgetPEORIA GROWN: $85,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetSUNSET EMPIRE PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $85,000 over 2y, 23% of budgetCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $77,340 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetINTEGRAL YOUTH SERVICES: $75,000 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetLOS ANGELES PARKS FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetFriends of Mill Ridge Park: $52,073 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetBUFFALO NIAGARA RIVER LAND TRUST INC: $50,000 over 1y, 84% of budgetTHE FRIENDS OF THE WISSAHICKON INC: $47,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetNORTHEAST OPPORTUNITIES FOR WELLNESS INC: $46,507 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetWESTERN WELLNESS FOUNDATION INC: $46,010 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetArizona Youth Partnership: $45,834 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetMARKETUMBRELLAORG: $45,000 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetANCHORAGE PARK FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 2y, 1.4% 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 PARK PRIDE INC ↗
  • Who funds TAOS LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds NEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PITTSBURGH PARKS CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING FOR KIDS ↗
  • Who funds PARKS AND PEOPLE INC ↗
  • Who funds CONNECT ↗
  • Who funds BEREA COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds HEARTLAND CONSERVATION ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds Civicwell ↗
  • Who funds CARTER COUNTY DRUG PREVENTION COALITION ↗

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.

Cities for Financial …National League of Ci…The Recycling Partner…FitLotFirehouse Subs Public…US Green Building Cou…Center for Technology…Urban Sustainability …AARPBest Friends Animal S…National Arbor Day Fo…United States Tennis …
Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund IncNY77.2× affinity41 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund Inc · National League of Cities Institute Inc · The Recycling Partnership Inc · FitLot · Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Inc · US Green Building Council Inc · Center for Technology and Civic Life · Urban Sustainability Directors Network · AARP · Best Friends Animal Society · National Arbor Day Foundation · United States Tennis Association Incorporated

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 Recreation and Park Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Recreation and Park Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 43%
  • Parks and People Inc: 43% of income from government
  • Integral Youth Services: 29% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
15report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 433 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 National Recreation and Park Association’s 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