Skip to content
Native Governance Center at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Native Governance Center

NATIVE GOVERNANCE CENTER (ngc) is a native-led nonprofit dedicated to assisting tribal nations in strengthening their governance systems and capacity to exercise sovereignty.

$403k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$100k
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, FY2018 to 2023.

Community Improvement$167kCivil Rights$158kPublic Benefit$38kArts & Culture$31k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY$100,000
LAC VIEUX DESERT BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS$100,000
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS$100,000
GRAND PORTAGE BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA$100,000
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 54% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 12%GRAND PORTAGE BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA: $100k → 9%FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA: $5k → 10%RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS: $33k → 11%MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE: $41k → 11%LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY: $100k → 11%BOIS FORTE BAND OF CHIPPEWA: $50k → 12%LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE: $5k → 14%INDIGENOUS ROOTS: $26k → 14%LAC VIEUX DESERT BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS: $100k → 17%THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES (MANDAN HIDATSA AND ARIKARA NATION): $8k → 10%SPIRIT LAKE NATION: $8k → 25%TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS: $100k → 26%STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE: $8k → 33%FLANDREAU SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE: $8k → 12%SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE: $8k → 17%YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE: $50k → 22%LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE: $8k → 22%CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE: $50k → 25%ROSEBUD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $8k → 40%OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE: $30k → 42%GRAND PORTAGE BAND OF CHIPPEWA: $5k → 9%4 DIRECTIONS DEVELOPMENT: $7k → 11%LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY: $5k → 11%BOIS FORTE BAND OF CHIPPEWA: $5k → 12%TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA: $8k → 26%YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE: $8k → 22%CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE: $8k → 25%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.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$432k · 5 repeat orgs$362k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
16

Total granted

$432k
$262k

Still filing today

0%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $100k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’23’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’23’25
Community ImprovementArts & CultureOther
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

  • TM
    TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA
    2× · 2019–2025 · $108k
  • GP
    GRAND PORTAGE BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR FOOD SHELF
    2× · 2020–2025 · $105k
  • LS
    LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY
    2× · 2020–2025 · $105k

Funded once

  • CR
    CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
  • ML
    MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE
    one grant, 2020 · $41k
  • RL
    RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
    one grant, 2020 · $33k
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
04the grantee network

2 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. 2 of the 22 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
2/2
Grantees still filing
2/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA: $108,333 · OtherTURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWAGRAND PORTAGE BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR FOOD SHELF: $105,000 · OtherGRAND PORTAGE BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR FOOD SHELFLOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY: $105,000 · OtherLOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITYLAC VIEUX DESERT BAND OF LAKE: $100,000 · OtherLAC VIEUX DESERT BAND OF LAKEYANKTON SIOUX TRIBE: $58,333 · OtherYANKTON SIOUX TRIBEBOIS FORTE BAND OF CHIPPEWA: $55,000 · OtherBOIS FORTE BAND OF CHIPPEWACHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE: $50,000 · OtherCHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBEMILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE: $41,000 · OtherMILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWERED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS: $32,587 · OtherPINE RIDGE RESERVATION DISTRICTS: $30,000 · Other+10 more: $74,398 · Other+10 moreIndigenous Roots: $25,711 · Arts & CultureFOUR BANDS COMMUNITY FUND INC: $8,333 · Community Improvement
Other$759,651Arts & Culture$25,711Community Improvement$8,333

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetIndigenous Roots: $25,711 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetFOUR BANDS COMMUNITY FUND INC: $8,333 over 1y, 0.4% 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 Indigenous Roots ↗
  • Who funds FOUR BANDS COMMUNITY FUND 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 Develop…Great Plains Tribal L…Saint Paul & Minnesot…Indian Land Tenure Fo…American Indian Cance…Ndn Collective IncHunger Solutions Minn…Humane World for Anim…Native American Agric…Minnesota Community F…The Minneapolis Found…C K Blandin Foundation
First Nations Development InstituteCO37.8× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: First Nations Development Institute · Great Plains Tribal Leaders Health · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Indian Land Tenure Foundation · American Indian Cancer Foundation · Ndn Collective Inc · Hunger Solutions Minnesota · Humane World for Animals Inc · Native American Agriculture Fund · Minnesota Community Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · C K Blandin 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 Native Governance Center funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Native Governance Center. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
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
    2report 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, FY20–24
    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 22 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 Native Governance Center’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