Skip to content

· Public charity

Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish & Water Commission

To facilitate inter-tribal (among four member tribes) and inter-governmental communication, education, and coordination relating to fisheries and water quality issues concerning the klamath river basin.

$536k
Granted FY2023
4
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$209k
Largest
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 2023.

Environment$3.5M
02FY2023 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$124,518
Median grant
2
States reached
$413k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KARUK INDIAN TRIBE$208,759
HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE$124,518
KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE$104,844
YUROK INDIAN TRIBE$98,028
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 (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 17%. 28% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 17%KARUK INDIAN TRIBE: $230k → 16%YUROK INDIAN TRIBE: $170k → 17%HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE: $200k → 18%KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE: $234k → 16%KARUK INDIAN TRIBE: $209k → 16%YUROK INDIAN TRIBE: $163k → 17%HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE: $192k → 18%KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE: $148k → 16%KARUK INDIAN TRIBE: $160k → 16%YUROK INDIAN TRIBE: $151k → 17%HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE: $149k → 18%KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE: $130k → 16%KARUK INDIAN TRIBE: $144k → 16%YUROK INDIAN TRIBE: $98k → 17%HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE: $125k → 18%KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE: $122k → 16%KARUK INDIAN TRIBE: $91k → 16%YUROK INDIAN TRIBE: $85k → 17%HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE: $124k → 18%KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE: $105k → 16%KARUK INDIAN TRIBE: $68k → 16%YUROK INDIAN TRIBE: $49k → 17%HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE: $114k → 18%KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE: $73k → 16%KARUK INDIAN TRIBE: $1k → 16%YUROK INDIAN TRIBE: $3k → 17%HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE: $84k → 18%KLAMATH INDIAN TRIBE: $69k → 16%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 field
04the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2023.

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 2023, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 4 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

HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBE: $986,643 · OtherHOOPA VALLEY INDIAN TRIBEKARUK TRIBE: $902,362 · OtherKARUK TRIBEKlamath Tribes: $879,722 · OtherKlamath TribesYUROK TRIBE: $720,400 · OtherYUROK TRIBE
Other$3,489,127

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.

National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife 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.
04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish & Water Commission?

Find your warmest path to Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish & Water Commission 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 4 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish & Water Commission’s filings →

More from the funding graph