Skip to content
Kawerak Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Kawerak Inc

Promote the social and economic welfare of members of iras and traditional councils

$21M
Granted FY2024still arriving
29
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$5.0M
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$31MHuman Services$1.4MArts & Culture$1.3MEnvironment$1.0MFood & Nutrition$446kEducation$416kReligion$171kAnimals$20kOther$0
02FY2024 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 29 grants below total $17,727,823, the rows itemized in this filing. The $21,033,658 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $3,305,835 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 $10k4 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $68k
  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.6M
  • $250k+12 grants · $16M
$195,226
Median grant
2
States reached
$97M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 19%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ALASKA NATIVE HERITAGE CENTER INC: $1.3M → 10%NATIVE VILLAGE OF ST MICHAEL: $2.0M → 20%STMICHAEL NATIVE VILLAGE: $257k → 20%STMICHAEL NATIVE VILLAGE: $191k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF BREVIG MISSION: $981k → 20%BREVIG MISSION NATIVE VILL: $219k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SHAKTOOLIK: $579k → 20%SHAKTOOLIK-NATIVE VILLAGE: $219k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF WHITE MOUNTAIN: $592k → 20%WHITE MOUNTAIN NATIVE VILL: $225k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF WHITE MOUNTAIN: $180k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK: $3.0M → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK: $219k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELL: $219k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OG GAMBELL: $173k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELL: $172k → 20%STEBBINS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $5.0M → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SAVOONGA: $170k → 20%STEBBINS COMM ASSOCIATION: $255k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SAVOONGA: $170k → 20%STEBBINS COMM ASSOCIATION: $189k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SAVOONGA: $161k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE WALES: $447k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF WALES: $188k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF WALES: $187k → 20%KING ISLAND NATIVE COMMUNITY: $835k → 20%VILLAGE OF SOLOMON: $392k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF DIOMEDE: $354k → 20%KING ISLAND NATIVE COMMUNITY: $332k → 20%VILLAGE OF SOLOMON: $261k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF DIOMEDE: $231k → 20%CHINIK ESKIMO COMMUNITY: $224k → 20%KING ISLAND NATIVE COMMUNI: $219k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF COUNCIL: $195k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF COUNCIL: $195k → 20%VILLAGE OF SOLOMON: $195k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF COUNCIL: $195k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF DIOMEDE: $174k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF TELLER: $335k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF MARY'S IGLOO: $324k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF MARY S IGLOO: $243k → 20%MARY'S IGLOO NATIVE VILL: $219k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF TELLER: $164k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF TELLER: $163k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF ELIM: $377k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF ELIM: $272k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OG ELIM: $206k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF ELIM: $197k → 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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$34M · 22 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
3

Total granted

$34M
$66k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-91%
-11%

Still filing today

0%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.9M 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
ReligionArts & CulturePublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementAnimalsOther
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

  • SC
    STEBBINS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $6.0M
  • NV
    NATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK
    8× · 2017–2024 · $3.8M
  • NV
    NATIVE VILLAGE OF ST MICHAEL
    8× · 2017–2024 · $3.1M

Funded once

  • BS
    BERING STRAITS NATIVE CORP
    one grant, 2023 · $34k
  • AN
    ALASKA NANNUT CO-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
    one grant, 2019 · $20k
  • NE
    NOME ESKIMO COMMUNITY
    one grant, 2017 · $13k
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
The Aleut Foundation
Education
2
Alaska Native Village Corporation Association

Anvca promotes the success of our village corporations and protection of our native lands.

Community Improvement
3
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association Educational Foundation Inc
Environment
4
Alaska Historical Publication Association
Education
5
Northern Alaska Environmental Center

Since 1971, the northern alaska environmental center has promoted environmental conservation and sustainable resource stewardship in interior and arctic alaska through education and advocacy.

Environment
6
Tanana Chiefs Conference

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.

Health
7
Alaska Native Health Board

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.

—
8
Arctic Education Foundation
Education
9
Alaska Native Arts Foundation

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…

Community Improvement
10
The Alaska Center

We engage, empower, and elect alaskans to stand up for our clean air and water, healthy communities, and a strong democracy.

Environment
11
Native Peoples Action Inc

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…

Civil Rights
12
Institute of the North

To inform public policy and cultivate an engaged citizenry consistent with our focus on the north and our belief that commonly-owned resources should be developed and managed for individual and community prosperity.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alaska Native Heritage Center Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 33 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)
8/9
Grantees still filing
1/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

STEBBINS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $5,992,567 · OtherSTEBBINS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONNATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK: $3,814,742 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUKNATIVE VILLAGE OF ST MICHAEL: $3,072,420 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE OF ST MICHAELNative Village of Savoonga: $2,397,092 · OtherNative Village of SavoongaKING ISLAND NATIVE COMMUNITY: $1,865,112 · OtherKING ISLAND NATIVE COMMUNITYNATIVE VILLAGE OF BREVIG MISSION: $1,765,344 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE OF ELIM: $1,579,566 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE OF WHITE MOUNTAIN: $1,486,987 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE OF SHAKTOOLIK: $1,398,674 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE WALES: $1,386,170 · OtherNative Village of Diomede: $1,310,863 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE OF MARY'S IGLOO: $1,248,413 · OtherNATIVE VILLAGE OF TELLER: $1,166,463 · Other+14 more: $5,425,769 · Other+14 moreAlaska Native Heritage Center Inc: $1,347,900 · Arts & CultureBERING STRAITS FOUNDATION: $170,617 · ReligionNUDLAGHI LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: $39,228 · Public BenefitALASKA NANNUT CO-MANAGEMENT COUNCIL: $19,530 · AnimalsNEW VENTURE FUND: $5,000 · EnvironmentFIRST ALASKANS INSTITUTE: $2,000 · Community Improvement
Other$33,910,182Arts & Culture$1,347,900Religion$170,617Public Benefit$39,228Animals$19,530Environment$5,000Community Improvement$2,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAlaska Native Heritage Center Inc: $1,347,900 over 1y, 12% of budgetBERING STRAITS FOUNDATION: $170,617 over 5y, 9.8% of budgetNUDLAGHI LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: $39,228 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetNOME COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFIRST ALASKANS INSTITUTE: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 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 ↗

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.

Norton Sound Economic…The Alaska Community …Norton Sound Health C…Rasmuson FoundationAlaska Native Tribal …First Alaskans Instit…Alaska Children's Tru…First Nations Develop…M J Murdock Charitabl…National Fish and Wil…Amazonsmile Foundation
Norton Sound Economic Development CorporationAK49.5× affinity21 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Kawerak Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kawerak Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    1report 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 33 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 Kawerak’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