Skip to content
Bristol Bay Native Association Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Bristol Bay Native Association Inc

The Mission of BBNA is to maintain and promote a strong regional organization supported by the Tribes of Bristol Bay to serve as a unified voice to provide social, economic, cultural, educational opportunities and initiatives to benefit the Tribes and the Native people of Bristol Bay.

$6.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
20
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.0M
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 2024.

Public Benefit$19MCivil Rights$7.6MEnvironment$2.4MArts & Culture$2.0MCommunity Improvement$152k
02FY2025 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 20 grants below total $6,121,041, the rows itemized in this filing. The $6,755,884 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $634,843 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $40k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.8M
  • $250k+9 grants · $4.3M
$237,813
Median grant
1
States reached
$97M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Manokotak Village Council$1,017,166
Twin Hills Village Council$587,709
Ekwok Village Council$556,040
Levelock Village Council$536,160
Portage Creek Village Council$426,091
Chignik Lagoon Village Counci$319,233
Curyung Tribal Council$280,384
Ekuk Village Council$277,738
Native Village of Perryville$274,232
Pilot Point Tribal Council$237,813
Clarks Point Village Council$234,148
Chignik Lake Village Council$231,249
Aleknagik Traditional Council$212,483
Native Village of Kanatak$199,817
New Stuyahok Traditional Coun$167,844
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CHIGNIK BAY TRIBAL COUNCIL: $470k → 10%Portage Creek Village Council: $426k → 10%New Stuyahok Traditional Coun: $886k → 20%Chignik Lagoon Village Counci: $500k → 20%Chignik Bay Tribal Council: $369k → 10%Portage Creek Village Council: $293k → 10%New Stuyahok Traditional Coun: $364k → 20%Chignik Lake Village Council: $231k → 20%IVANOF BAY TRIBAL COUNCIL: $244k → 10%New Stuyahok Traditional Coun: $255k → 20%Chignik Lagoon Village Counci: $434k → 20%Portage Creek Village Council: $236k → 10%New Stuyahok Traditional Coun: $242k → 20%Pilot Point Tribal Council: $288k → 20%Chignik Lagoon Village Counci: $367k → 20%Pilot Point Village Council: $286k → 20%Chignik Lagoon Village Counci: $319k → 20%Curyung Tribal Council: $2.2M → 20%PILOT POINT TRIBAL COUNCIL: $260k → 20%Curyung Tribal Council: $1.0M → 20%Twin Hills Village Council: $588k → 20%CHIGNIK LAGOON VILLAGE COUNCIL: $242k → 20%New Koliganek Village Council: $529k → 20%Pilot Point Tribal Council: $238k → 20%Curyung Tribal Council: $319k → 20%Ekuk Village Council: $310k → 20%New Koliganek Village Council: $305k → 20%Curyung Tribal Council: $280k → 20%Ekuk Village Council: $278k → 20%Twin Hills Village Council: $230k → 20%Native Village of Perryville: $358k → 20%Native Village of Perryville: $312k → 20%Native Village of Perryville: $274k → 20%Native Village of Perryville: $240k → 20%Levelock Village Council: $536k → 20%Levelock Village Council: $320k → 20%Levelock Village Council: $289k → 20%Clarks Point Village Council: $400k → 20%Ekwok Village Council: $556k → 20%Clarks Point Village Council: $265k → 20%Ekwok Village Council: $307k → 20%Clarks Point Village Council: $248k → 20%Ekwok Village Council: $263k → 20%Clarks Point Village Council: $234k → 20%Aleknagik Traditional Council: $314k → 20%Manokotak Village Council: $1.0M → 20%Manokotak Village Council: $534k → 20%Traditional Council of Togiak: $809k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$38M · 19 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

19 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
0

Total granted

$38M
$0

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • CT
    Curyung Tribal Council
    9× · 2017–2025 · $4.5M
  • PP
    PILOT POINT TRIBAL COUNCIL
    9× · 2017–2025 · $4.0M
  • CT
    CURYUNG TRIBAL COUNCIL
    9× · 2017–2025 · $3.8M

Funded once

    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
    04the grantee network

    0 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. 0 of the 19 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.

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    0
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    0/0
    Grantees still filing
    0/0
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    Curyung Tribal Council: $4,505,395 · OtherCuryung Tribal CouncilPILOT POINT TRIBAL COUNCIL: $4,046,641 · OtherPILOT POINT TRIBAL COUNCILCURYUNG TRIBAL COUNCIL: $3,834,709 · OtherCURYUNG TRIBAL COUNCILChignik Lagoon Village Counci: $2,324,124 · OtherChignik Lagoon Village CounciNew Stuyahok Traditional Coun: $2,318,663 · OtherNew Stuyahok Traditional CounEkwok Village Council: $2,183,586 · OtherEkwok Village CouncilNew Koliganek Village Council: $2,002,784 · OtherLEVELOCK VILLAGE COUNCIL: $1,878,882 · OtherNative Village of Kanatak: $1,877,920 · OtherTWIN HILLS VILLAGE COUNCIL: $1,859,551 · OtherEkuk Village Council: $1,753,166 · OtherCHIGNIK BAY TRIBAL COUNCIL: $1,635,937 · OtherPilot Point Tribal Council: $1,464,980 · Other+6 more: $5,998,929 · Other+6 more
    Other$37,685,267

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

    25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

    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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

    Bristol Bay Economic …
    Bristol Bay Economic Development CorpAK20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp

    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.

    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 19 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Bristol Bay Native Association’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