· Community foundation
Arctic Slope Community Foundation Inc
Strengthen our culture of giving and improve the quality on life among the people of the Arctic Slope region of Alaska by providing and administering grants to support the community health and economic stability of the villages of Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Anaktuvuk Pass, and Kaktovik.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 14 grants below total $688,830 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $805,517 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $116,687 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k11 grants · $290k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $399k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Utqiagvik Presbyterian Church | $198,000 |
| Arctic Education Foundation | $133,000 |
| Point Hope Booster Club | $68,000 |
| Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commiss | $48,922 |
| Nagsragmiut Tribal Council | $32,795 |
| Ilisagvik College | $30,000 |
| City of Anaktuvuk Pass | $30,000 |
| City of Wainwright | $27,887 |
| Point Hope Episcopal Church | $25,000 |
| Point Hope Assembly of God | $25,000 |
| Whaler Athletics Fundraising | $25,000 |
| New Beginnings Church of God | $19,816 |
| Kuukpik Presbyterian Church | $15,410 |
| Village of Wainwright | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–17, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
25 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k 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
- AEAlaska Eskimo Whaling Commission6× · 2019–2024 · $891k · revenue +22%
- AHALASKA HUMANITIES FORUM2× · 2020–2021 · $800k · revenue +1%
- AEARCTIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION3× · 2022–2024 · $431k · revenue +45%
Funded once
- BSBARROW SEARCH & RESCUEgraduated2× · 2018–2022 · $200k · revenue +192% · 45% of their budget
- IAINTERGENERATIONAL ARCTIC MINISTRIESone grant, 2020 · $184k
- UCUIC Construction LLCone grant, 2022 · $58k
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.
Cultural activities and classes - 20 participants per class - 6 classes
Strengthen our culture of giving and improve the quality on life among the people of the Arctic Slope region of Alaska by providing and administering grants to support the community health and economic stability of the villages of Point…
Offer assistance for emergency personnel.
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…
Provide training and information to housing authority employees and representatives throughout the state of alaska.
Icc alaska exists as the unified voice and collective spirit of alaskan inuit, to promote, protect and advance inuit culture and society.
As the official representative of the state of alaska, to promote and integrate athletic and cultural activities for the youth of alaska with the youth of the international circumpolar north.
To finding and doing basic medical to people lost or have perished in the wilderness. Our goal is to bring people home safely!
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Arctic Slope Native Association and the most unlike its peers is Point Hope Booster Club. 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 45 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
16 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. 16 of the 40 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 Boys & Girls Clubs of Southcentral Alaska ↗
- Who funds Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission ↗
- Who funds ALASKA HUMANITIES FORUM ↗
- Who funds ARCTIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BARROW SEARCH & RESCUE ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ARCTIC SLOPE NATIVE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Ilisagvik College ↗
- Who funds Alaska Art Alliance Company ↗
- Who funds POINT HOPE BOOSTER CLUB ↗
- Who funds REINHOLDS FIRE COMPANY NO 1 ↗
- Who funds SKIKU INC FORMERLY NORDIC JOURNEYS INC ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds COVENANT HOUSE ALASKA ↗
- Who funds BETHEL COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION ↗
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: The Alaska Community Foundation · Rasmuson Foundation · Alaska Children's Trust · Barrow Utilities and Electric Coop · Richard L and Diane M Block Foundation · Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Arctic Slope Community Foundation Inc 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Arctic Slope Community Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Arctic Slope Community Foundation Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.