Greater Metro Parks Foundation Dba Tacoma Parks Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911482669
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Tacoma, WA, USA
Phone
2533051066
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,423,635
Expenses
$4,480,469
Assets
$10,280,037
Liabilities
$680,506

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jessica Knickerbocker (President)
  • Kelsey Horne (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Beth Boggs (Executive Direc): $202,853 total reported compensation
  • Keysha-Rae Cooper (Deputy Director): $147,559 total reported compensation
  • Quinn Bartholomew (Director of Communication & operati): $105,813 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

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.

What it reported doing in 2025

Program Support- The Foundation works in partnership with the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma (MPT) to support mission-priority programs. These include the arts, youth sports and development, fitness and wellness, specialized recreation, heritage and special events. Donations help fill the gap and sustain these programs. For example our community arts programs provide free access to arts in low income communities for health, learning and community, providing access to underserved children and families with opportunities to access league sports play, arts programming, environmental education and exploration, and more.The Foundation also raises and invests endowment funds for sustainable programming.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 99; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.29; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.4% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $203K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.