Skip to content
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp at a glance

· Public charity

Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp

It is the purpose of the BRISTOL BAY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPoration to promote economic growth and opportunities for residents of its member communities through sustainable use of the bering sea resources.

$11M
Granted FY2023
36
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$1.2M
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 2023.

Community Improvement$57MEnvironment$7.0MEmployment$4.8MScience & Tech$4.3MYouth Development$926kEducation$871kHuman Services$764kPublic Benefit$79kOther$0
02FY2023 · 36 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 36 grants below total $9,143,028, the rows itemized in this filing. The $11,370,579 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,227,551 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 · FY2023

  • Under $10k4 grants · $30k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $222k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.2M
  • $250k+12 grants · $7.7M
$105,580
Median grant
1
States reached
$395M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PILOT POINT TRIBAL COUNCIL$1,156,498
BRISTOL BAY SCIENCE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE$1,000,000
CLARKS POINT VILLAGE COUNCIL$866,056
ALEKNAGIK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL$844,148
UGASHIK TRADITIONAL VILLAGE$724,745
CURYUNG TRIBAL COUNCIL$679,363
NAKNEK VILLAGE COUNCIL$626,249
EKWOK VILLAGE COUNCIL$523,025
MANOKOTAK VILLAGE COUNCIL$410,729
UNITED TRIBES OF BRISTOL BAY$313,525
KING SALMON TRIBAL COUNCIL$287,500
EKUK VILLAGE COUNCIL$265,801
TRADITIONAL COUNCIL OF TOGIAK$198,534
LEVELOCK VILLAGE COUNCIL$185,450
LAKE & PENINSULA SCHOOL DISTRICT$150,000
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 (FY17–23, $168k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%LITTLE ANGELS CHILDCARE ACADEMY: $17k → 14%LITTLE ANGELS CHILDCARE ACAD: $16k → 14%BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOC: $53k → 20%BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION: $34k → 20%BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION: $17k → 20%BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOC: $9k → 20%GOING THE DISTANCE LLC: $9k → 20%BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOCIATION: $6k → 20%BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSOC: $6k → 20%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.
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$74M · 54 repeat orgs$1.4M to everyone else

54 repeat relationships: 29 still active in FY2023, 25 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

54
17

Total granted

$74M
$508k

Still filing today

22%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $898k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
Human ServicesEducationHealthScience & TechEnvironmentArts & CultureOther
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

  • BB
    BRISTOL BAY SCIENCE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE
    7× · 2017–2023 · $5.8M · revenue +75% · 59% of their budget
  • TS
    The Southwest Alaska Vocational and Educational Center
    7× · 2017–2023 · $1.1M · revenue +84% · 44% of their budget
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FOUNDATION
    4× · 2020–2023 · $255k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • CO
    CITY OF CLARK'S POINT
    one grant, 2020 · $300k
  • CO
    CITY OF PILOT POINT
    one grant, 2017 · $25k
  • US
    UNITED STATES SEAFOODS LLC
    one grant, 2017 · $24k
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
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association Educational Foundation Inc
Environment
2
Bristol Bay Fishermens Association

BBFA seeks to protect salmon resources and represents interests of members and offers and insurance program to members.

—
3
Marrulut Eniit Assisted Living Inc % City of Dillingham

To provide assisted living services to elderly native Americans living in Dillingham, Alaska. In 2020, MEAL discontinued operating as an assisted living facility and started leasing its space to Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC)…

Human Services
4
Bering Sea Fishermens Association

Western alaska fisheries support and restoration.

Community Improvement
5
Bristol Bay Reserve Association

To promote the interests of membership that operate in the Bristol Bay, Alaska salmon fishery

Community Improvement
6
Alaska Historical Publication Association
Education
7
Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association Inc

To maximize the value of the bristol bay fishery for the benefit of its members by focusing on the economic wellbeing of bbrsda members, supporting a sustainable bristol bay commercial fishery, and providing the highest quality wild salmon…

Animals
8
Food Bank of Alaska

FBA believes no one deserves to be hungry. We are dedicated to eliminating hunger in Alaska by obtaining and providing food to partner agencies and through anti-hunger leadership.

Food & Nutrition
9
Seaview Community Services

Administer programs designed to provide services, education, and consultation in the areas of mental health and substance use to the Seward, Alaska area.

—
10
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council Inc-Seacc

SEACC's mission is to protect the special places of the world's largest temperate rainforest, promote conservation, and advocate for sustainability in human use of natural resources. Inspired by the land, wildlife, cultures, and…

Environment
11
South Peninsula Behavioral Health Services Inc

The organization operates primarily on the Southern Kenai Peninsula and its operations include the following:Community Mental Health - Counseling, evaluation, consultation and crisis mental health services for Adults and…

Health
12
Southeast Alaska Wilderness Exploration Analysis and Discovery

Our organization supports community-based approaches to social, economic and environmental sustainability in Southeast Alaska.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Little Angels Childcare Academy. 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

14 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 14 of the 78 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
8/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PILOT POINT TRIBAL COUNCIL: $4,470,507 · OtherPILOT POINT TRIBAL COUNCILUGASHIK TRADITIONAL VILLAGE: $4,268,476 · OtherUGASHIK TRADITIONAL VILLAGEEKWOK VILLAGE COUNCIL: $4,126,627 · OtherEKWOK VILLAGE COUNCILALEKNAGIK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $4,080,964 · OtherALEKNAGIK TRADITIONAL COUNCILNAKNEK VILLAGE COUNCIL: $3,950,498 · OtherNAKNEK VILLAGE COUNCILEKUK VILLAGE COUNCIL: $3,746,740 · OtherEKUK VILLAGE COUNCILNATIVE VILLAGE OF PORT HEIDEN: $3,703,081 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE OF PORT HEIDENLEVELOCK VILLAGE COUNCIL: $3,695,773 · OtherLEVELOCK VILLAGE COUNCILTWIN HILLS VILLAGE COUNCIL: $3,682,894 · OtherTWIN HILLS VILLAGE COUNCILCURYUNG TRIBAL COUNCIL: $3,532,384 · OtherCuryung Tribal Council: $3,491,383 · OtherCLARKS POINT VILLAGE COUNCIL: $3,485,517 · OtherCHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH OF FAIRBANKS ALASKA: $3,396,806 · OtherSOUTH NAKNEK VILLAGE COUNCIL: $3,375,640 · OtherMANOKOTAK VILLAGE COUNCIL: $3,308,957 · OtherPORTAGE CREEK VILLAGE COUNCIL: $3,157,238 · OtherKING SALMON VILLAGE COUNCIL: $2,441,184 · Other+51 more: $6,478,271 · Other+51 moreBRISTOL BAY SCIENCE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $5,750,000 · Science & TechThe Southwest Alaska Vocational and Educational Center: $1,082,347 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FOUNDATION: $255,357 · EducationBristol Bay Native Association Inc: $126,043 · Human ServicesLITTLE ANGELS CHILDCARE ACADEMY: $32,442 · Human ServicesNORTHEAST LOUISIANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $9,131 · Human ServicesBristol Bay Area Health Corporation: $47,098 · HealthCamai Community Health Center Inc: $39,460 · HealthBRISTOL BAY HERITAGE LAND TRUST: $50,000 · EnvironmentSEASHARE: $24,999 · Community Improvement
Other$68,392,940Science & Tech$5,750,000Education$1,337,704Human Services$167,616Health$86,558Environment$50,000Community Improvement$24,999

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBRISTOL BAY SCIENCE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $5,750,000 over 7y, 59% of budgetThe Southwest Alaska Vocational and Educational Center: $1,082,347 over 7y, 44% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FOUNDATION: $255,357 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetBristol Bay Native Association Inc: $126,043 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetSAFE AND FEAR-FREE ENVIRONMENT INC: $79,117 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetBRISTOL BAY HERITAGE LAND TRUST: $50,000 over 5y, 3.2% of budgetBristol Bay Area Health Corporation: $47,098 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCamai Community Health Center Inc: $39,460 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetLITTLE ANGELS CHILDCARE ACADEMY: $32,442 over 2y, 17% of budgetSEASHARE: $24,999 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetBristol Bay Historical Society Inc: $24,830 over 1y, 9.9% of budgetNUSHAGAK ELECTRIC & TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE INC: $20,545 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBRISTOL BAY TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE INC: $16,627 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNORTHEAST LOUISIANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $9,131 over 1y, 7.0% 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 BRISTOL BAY SCIENCE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds The Southwest Alaska Vocational and Educational Center ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Bristol Bay Native Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds SAFE AND FEAR-FREE ENVIRONMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds BRISTOL BAY HERITAGE LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation ↗
  • Who funds Camai Community Health Center Inc ↗

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.

The Alaska Community …Rasmuson FoundationBristol Bay Native As…Bristol Bay Regional …Bristol Bay FoundationAlaskan Leader Founda…Alaska Native Tribal …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Alaska Community FoundationAK24× affinity11 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Alaska Community Foundation · Rasmuson Foundation · Bristol Bay Native Association Inc · Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association Inc · Bristol Bay Foundation · Alaskan Leader Foundation · Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 78 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Bristol Bay Economic Development’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