· Public charity
Indian Pueblo Cultural Center
To preserve and perpetuate pueblo culture and to advance understanding by presenting with dignity and respect the accomplishments and evolving history of the pueblo people of new mexico.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2022.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $36,344 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $37,517 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,173 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 · FY2022
- Under $10k2 grants · $10k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $26k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PUEBLO OF PICURIS | $13,033 |
| PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO | $12,863 |
| PUEBLO OF SANTA DOMINGO | $5,256 |
| PUEBLO OF NAMBE | $5,192 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 44% of your 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.
9 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2022, 5 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
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
- POPUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO3× · 2020–2022 · $348k
- POPUEBLO OF ACOMA2× · 2020–2021 · $239k
- POPUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA2× · 2020–2021 · $169k
Funded once
- POPUEBLO OF ZUNIone grant, 2020 · $82k
- POPUEBLO OF COCHITIone grant, 2020 · $78k
- POPUEBLO OF ZIAone grant, 2020 · $76k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2020–2022.
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 2020–2022, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 20 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.
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: Albuquerque Area Indian Health Board Inc · Chamiza Foundation · New Mexico Community Foundation · First Nations Development Institute · Los Alamos National Laboratory 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.