Skip to content
Coastal Villages Region Fund at a glance

· Public charity

Coastal Villages Region Fund

Coastal villages' mission is to provide the means for development of our communities by sensibly creating tangible, long-term opportunities that generate hope for all residents who want to fish and work.

$2.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$156k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Community Improvement$3.8MYouth Development$92kFood & Nutrition$70kEducation$60kEnvironment$45kRecreation & Sports$15kArts & Culture$8k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $395,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,450,900 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,055,400 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $388k
$75,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$340M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CQS1 LLC$156,000
CQS2 LLC$84,000
CQS4 LLC$75,000
CQS3 LLC$73,000
ALASKA SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION INC$7,500
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%SEASHARE: $42k → 10%NAPASKIAK TRIBAL COUNCIL: $26k → 22%City of Hooper Bay: $53k → 30%Napaskiak Tribal Council: $24k → 22%NATIVE VILLAGE OF HOOPER BAY: $43k → 30%Native Village of Hooper Bay: $35k → 30%Native Village of Hooper Bay: $30k → 30%CQS1 LLC: $265k → 10%CITY OF HOOPER BAY: $27k → 30%CQS1 LLC: $237k → 10%CQS4 LLC: $178k → 10%CQS4 LLC: $175k → 10%CQS1 LLC: $156k → 10%City of Chevak: $45k → 30%CQS3 LLC: $150k → 10%CHEVAK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $44k → 30%CQS2 LLC: $145k → 10%CITY OF CHEVAK: $32k → 30%CQS3 LLC: $139k → 10%SCAMMON BAY TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $32k → 30%CQS2 LLC: $133k → 10%Chevak Traditional Council: $32k → 30%CQS2 LLC: $84k → 10%City of Scammon Bay: $31k → 30%CQS4 LLC: $75k → 10%Chevak Traditional Council: $24k → 30%CQS3 LLC: $73k → 10%Scammon Bay Traditional Council: $28k → 30%CQS4 LLC: $41k → 10%CQS1 LLC: $41k → 10%CQS2 LLC: $41k → 10%CQS3 LLC: $41k → 10%BERING SEA FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION: $27k → 10%KIPNUK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $36k → 22%Kipnuk Traditional Council: $30k → 22%KIPNUK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $26k → 22%Native Village of Mekoryuk: $29k → 22%CHEFORNAK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $28k → 22%Chefornak Traditional Council: $24k → 22%NUNAKAUYAK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $34k → 22%Nunakauyak Traditional Council: $32k → 22%Nunakauyak Traditional Council: $31k → 22%NUNAKAUYAK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $24k → 22%NATIVE VILLAGE OF KWIGILLINGOK: $25k → 22%NATIVE VILLAGE OF KWINHAGAK: $37k → 22%Native Village of Kwinhagak: $34k → 22%Native Village of Kwinhagak: $31k → 22%CITY OF QUINHAGAK: $25k → 22%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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.9M · 30 repeat orgs$225k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +103% since the first grant, against +56% for those funded once.

30 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 25 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
12

Total granted

$3.9M
$225k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+103%
+56%

Still filing today

7%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementEducationOther
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

  • CL
    CQS1 LLC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $699k
  • CL
    CQS4 LLC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $467k
  • CL
    CQS3 LLC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $405k

Funded once

  • CO
    City of Chevak
    one grant, 2019 · $45k
  • CO
    CITY OF CHEVAK
    one grant, 2021 · $32k
  • CO
    City of Scammon Bay
    one grant, 2019 · $31k
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

5 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. 5 of the 42 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CQS1 LLC: $698,759 · OtherCQS1 LLCCQS4 LLC: $466,759 · OtherCQS4 LLCCQS3 LLC: $404,759 · OtherCQS3 LLCCQS2 LLC: $402,759 · OtherCQS2 LLCNATIVE VILLAGE OF KWINHAGAK: $135,401 · Other+34 more: $1,853,513 · Other+34 moreSEASHARE: $69,853 · Community ImprovementBERING SEA FISHERMENS ASSOCIATION: $27,000 · Community ImprovementALASKA SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSN INC: $52,808 · Education
Other$3,961,950Community Improvement$96,853Education$52,808

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSEASHARE: $69,853 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetALASKA SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSN INC: $52,808 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetBERING SEA FISHERMENS ASSOCIATION: $27,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBETHEL BROADCASTING INC: $7,560 over 1y, 0.4% 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 SEASHARE ↗
  • Who funds ALASKA SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSN INC ↗
  • Who funds BERING SEA FISHERMENS ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES ↗

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.

Alaska Native Tribal …The Alaska Community …Rasmuson FoundationFirst Nations Develop…
Alaska Native Tribal Health ConsortiumAK21.9× affinity8 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium · The Alaska Community Foundation · Rasmuson Foundation · First Nations Development Institute

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 Coastal Villages Region Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Coastal Villages Region Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Coastal Villages Region Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Coastal Villages Region Fund 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.

    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 42 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Coastal Villages Region’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