· Public charity
Alaska Conservation Foundation
Protects alaska's unique landscapes and ways of life by supporting conservation leaders, organizations, and initiatives.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k8 grants · $59k
- $10k–50k38 grants · $840k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $963k
- $250k+1 grant · $258k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY | $258,378 |
| NATIVE CONSERVANCY | $226,439 |
| UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SOUTHEAST | $140,732 |
| UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS | $93,386 |
| ALASKA SEEDS OF CHANGE | $82,566 |
| SITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY | $82,361 |
| ALEUT COMMUNITY OF ST PAUL | $78,069 |
| NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL | $74,299 |
| SPRUCE ROOT INC | $73,392 |
| ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE | $56,215 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE | $55,911 |
| KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION | $47,373 |
| TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA | $45,000 |
| COOK INLET KEEPER | $44,000 |
| SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION | $42,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $91k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 48% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
62 repeat relationships — 45 still active in FY2025, 17 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $158k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- SRSPRUCE ROOT INC6× · 2017–2025 · $869k · revenue ×13
- SCSITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY9× · 2017–2025 · $816k · revenue +179%
- APAlaska Pacific University5× · 2021–2025 · $811k · revenue +14%
Funded once
- IVIGIUGIG VILLAGEone grant, 2024 · $150k
- SASOUTHEAST ALASKA WILDERNESS EXPLORATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOVERYone grant, 2018 · $55k · revenue -99% · 32% of their budget
- WMWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INCone grant, 2020 · $41k · revenue +23%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (Commission), based in Utqiagvik, Alaska, is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of preserving and enhancing the marine resources of Bowhead whales including protection of habitat, Eskimo…
The alaska nannut co-management council (ancc) was established to represent the collective alaska native voice in polar bear co-management. ancc is a tribally authorized organization with membership consisting of the 15 tribes in alaska…
Katmai Conservancy supports the preservation of Katmai National Park and Preserve its unique ecosystems scenic character and associated natural and cultural resources by promoting greater public interest appreciation and support through…
Western alaska fisheries support and restoration.
The primary purpose of aacd is to provide administrative support to local districts and expend funds to carry our local programs aimed at conservation and orderly development of alaska's land and water resources.
To advance solutions that build the resilience and sustainability of Alaska, for its current and future residents and the natural systems upon which they depend.
Building partnerships, building trails. Working to build trails across the state and build capacity for trail organizations.
To conserve functioning salmon/steelhead eco-system at watershed levels, integrate angling activities with basic scientific research, collect raw data, monitor environmental functions, salmon/steelhead population dynamics, public…
The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (the Commission) was established for the purpose of providing formal advocacy to manage natural resources in ways consistent with the cultural traditions of the Chugach Native people.
Protects alaska's unique landscapes and ways of life by supporting conservation leaders, organizations, and initiatives.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Alaska Center and the most unlike its peers is Southeast Alaska Wilderness Exploration Analysis and Discovery. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
69 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 69 of the 105 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds SPRUCE ROOT INC ↗
- Who funds SITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Alaska Pacific University ↗
- Who funds RENEWABLE ENERGY ALASKA PROJECT ↗
- Who funds NATIVE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds ANCHORAGE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds THE ALASKA CENTER EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA ↗
- Who funds COOK INLETKEEPER ↗
- Who funds Southeast Alaska Conservation Council Inc-SEACC ↗
- Who funds Stand for Salmon ↗
- Who funds NATIVE MOVEMENT ↗
- Who funds Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds Ahtna Intertribal Resource Commission ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR ALASKAN COASTAL STUDIES ↗
- Who funds SOUTHEAST ALASKA WATERSHED COALITION ↗
- Who funds ALASKA LONGLINE FISHERMENS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS ↗
- Who funds ALASKA MARINE COMMUNITY COALITION ↗
- Who funds Alaska Village Initiatives ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ALASKA DISCOVERY FOUNDATION INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Rasmuson Foundation · The Alaska Community Foundation · First Nations Development Institute · Patagoniaorg · Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium · New Venture Fund · Charlotte y Martin Foundation-Ima · True North Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Ocean Conservancy · Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples Inc · National Forest Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Alaska Conservation Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Wildlife Management Institute Inc — 100% of income from government
- Wild Salmon Center — 49% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.