· Public charity
Kawerak Inc
Promote the social and economic welfare of members of iras and traditional councils
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 29 grants below total $17,727,823 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $21,033,658 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $3,305,835 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
- Under $10k4 grants · $12k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $68k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $1.6M
- $250k+12 grants · $16M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| STEBBINS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION | $4,968,481 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK | $3,034,356 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF ST MICHAEL | $2,049,106 |
| ALASKA NATIVE HERITAGE CENTER INC | $1,347,900 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF BREVIG MISSION | $980,836 |
| KING ISLAND NATIVE COMMUNITY | $835,165 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF WHITE MOUNTAIN | $591,979 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF SHAKTOOLIK | $578,979 |
| QUINTILLION SUBSEA OPERATIONS LLC | $496,776 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE WALES | $446,868 |
| VILLAGE OF SOLOMON | $391,691 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF DIOMEDE | $354,296 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF MARY S IGLOO | $243,392 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF ELIM | $196,652 |
| NATIVE VILLAGE OF COUNCIL | $195,226 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of your 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.
22 repeat relationships — 20 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 7 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, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.9M 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
- SCSTEBBINS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION8× · 2017–2024 · $6.0M
- NVNATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK8× · 2017–2024 · $3.8M
- NVNATIVE VILLAGE OF ST MICHAEL8× · 2017–2024 · $3.1M
Funded once
- BSBERING STRAITS NATIVE CORPone grant, 2023 · $34k
- ANALASKA NANNUT CO-MANAGEMENT COUNCILone grant, 2019 · $20k
- NENOME ESKIMO COMMUNITYone grant, 2017 · $13k
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.
ANVCA promotes the success of our Village Corporations and protection of our Native lands.
Since 1971, the northern alaska environmental center has promoted environmental conservation and sustainable resource stewardship in interior and arctic alaska through education and advocacy.
The mission of the alaska native health board is to promote the spiritual, physical, mental, social, and cultural well-being and pride of alaska native people.
The arctic slope native association (asna) was organized as an alaskan nonprofit corporation dedicated to the cause of native self-determination. asna responds to the needs and priorities of the recognized tribal councils to encourage and…
Tanana Chiefs Conference provides a unified voice in advancing sovereign tribal governments through the promotion of physical and mental wellness, education, socioeconomic development, and culture of the interior Alaska native people.
To promote and celebrate the uniqueness of alaska native arts and heritage. improve the economic well being of alaska native artists; invigorate education and training of the next generation of alaska native artists; increase awareness of…
We engage, empower, and elect alaskans to stand up for our clean air and water, healthy communities, and a strong democracy.
Native Peoples Action gives voice to our ancestral imperative to uplift our peoples and protect our ways of life by taking a stand, working together and mobilizing action. We do this through ensuring Alaska Natives are heard in all levels…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alaska Native Heritage Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Bering Straits Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 33 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 Alaska Native Heritage Center Inc ↗
- Who funds BERING STRAITS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NUDLAGHI LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ALASKA NANNUT CO-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds NOME COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES ↗
- Who funds FIRST ALASKANS INSTITUTE ↗
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: Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation · The Alaska Community Foundation · Norton Sound Health Corporation · Rasmuson Foundation · Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium · First Alaskans Institute · Alaska Children's Trust · First Nations Development Institute · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · 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 Kawerak 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.