Skip to content

· Public charity

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservati

NATHPOs mission is to provide guidance to preservation officials, elected representatives, and the public about national historic preservation legislation, policies and regulations.

$1.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
25
Grants FY2025still arriving
—
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$40,000
Median grant
—
States reached
$1.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Kiowa Tribe$40,000
Samish Tribe$40,000
571001665$40,000
Eastern Shawnee Tribe$40,000
Washoe Tribe of Nevada and Californ$40,000
White Mountain Apache Tribe$40,000
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Mi$40,000
Pueblo de Cochiti$40,000
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe$40,000
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma$40,000
SaukSuiattle Indian Tribe$40,000
Elnu Abenaki Tribe$40,000
Ft Belknap$40,000
Blackfeet Nation$40,000
Pit River Tribe$40,000
02The need
02

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:

Its human-services grants (FY24–24, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 26%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Lumbee Land Development Inc: $6k → 26%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
MN
WI
MI
NV
WY
CA
NM
KS
NC
OK
LA
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.

16%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$183k · 4 repeat orgs$940k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
17

Total granted

$183k
$100k

Still filing today

0%
12%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 16% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $840k went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
Arts & CultureHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
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
    SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBAL COLLEGE
    2× · 2024–2025 · $46k
  • RS
    RENO SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $46k
  • BT
    BLACKFEET TRIBE
    2× · 2024–2025 · $46k

Funded once

  • MI
    MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN
    one grant, 2024 · $6k
  • TT
    Thloptholocco Tribal Town
    one grant, 2024 · $6k
  • PO
    PUEBLO OF ACOMA
    one grant, 2024 · $6k
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
03the grantee network

3 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2018–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2018 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 3 of the 41 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
1/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA: $80,000 · OtherEASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMASAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBAL COLLEGE: $45,870 · OtherRENO SPARKS INDIAN COLONY: $45,870 · OtherBLACKFEET TRIBE: $45,870 · OtherTIMBISHA SHOSHONE TRIBE: $45,870 · OtherWASHOE TRIBE OF NV AND CA: $40,000 · OtherTUNICA BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA: $40,000 · OtherPUEBLO OF COCHITI: $40,000 · OtherPIT RIVER TRIBE: $40,000 · OtherJamul Indian Village of CA: $40,000 · OtherSTOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY: $40,000 · OtherPAWNEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA: $40,000 · OtherSAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE: $40,000 · OtherFEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHE: $40,000 · OtherSamish Indian Nation: $40,000 · OtherIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA: $40,000 · OtherTHE KIOWA TRIBE: $40,000 · OtherKNNB: $40,000 · OtherPUEBLO DE SAN ILDEFONSO: $40,000 · OtherSeminole Nation of Oklahoma: $40,000 · OtherQUAPAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA: $40,000 · OtherCAHUILLA: $40,000 · OtherFORT BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY: $40,000 · Other+15 more: $88,050 · Other+15 moreELNU ABENAKI INC: $40,000 · Arts & CultureLUMBEE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC: $5,870 · Human ServicesJAMESTOWN SKLALLAM TRIBAL CAPITAL INC: $5,870 · Community Improvement
Other$1,071,530Arts & Culture$40,000Human Services$5,870Community Improvement$5,870

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetELNU ABENAKI INC: $40,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetLUMBEE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC: $5,870 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJAMESTOWN SKLALLAM TRIBAL CAPITAL INC: $5,870 over 1y, 4.8% 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 ELNU ABENAKI INC ↗
  • Who funds LUMBEE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds JAMESTOWN SKLALLAM TRIBAL CAPITAL INC ↗

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.

First Nations Development InstituteCO37.8× affinity16 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: First Nations Development Institute · National Indian Health Board · Indian Land Tenure Foundation · Grid Alternatives · Association of Tribal Archives Libraries & Museums · National Congress of American Indians Fund · Ndn Collective Inc · Native American Agriculture Fund

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 National Association of Tribal Historic Preservati funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Association of Tribal Historic Preservati. 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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to National Association of Tribal Historic Preservati?

    Find your warmest path to National Association of Tribal Historic Preservati 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 41 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on National Association of Tribal Historic Preservati’s filings →

    More from the funding graph