Friends of the Parks of Arlington Heights

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272059488
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Arlington Hts, IL, USA
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$43,627
Expenses
$10,440
Assets
$95,632

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Frank Lesniak (President)
  • Nancy Prosser (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Carol Gabrielsen (Director)
  • Adam Eichorn (Director)
  • Jane Holze (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Founded in 2001 the Arlington Heights Park Foundation is a 501c 3 not-for-profit organization that serves as the fundraising arm of the Arlington Heights Park District. A Board of Directors consisting of local community members acts to improve the quality of life for people utilizing the park system. The Arlington Heights Park Foundations goal is to stimulate and promote further interest in parks and recreation. The Foundation encourages volunteerism and outside resources that will enable enhancement to the Arlington Heights Park District programs while improving the quality of life for those who utilize its parkland facilities and services. Financial support for the Foundation itself comes from grants private donations and special events.

What it reported doing in 2025

50,000 outstanding payable for Recreation Parks inclusive playground out of 200,000 commitment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 81% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.2%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 76.1%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.16; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.2% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 5 filed program accomplishments · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.