· Public charity
Native Movement
The organization's primary exempt purpose is to engage community members to ensure indigenous peoples' rights, the rights of mother earth, and the building of healthy and sustainable communities for all.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 19 grants below total $450,417 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $524,789 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $74,372 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 $10k5 grants · $39k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $140k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $271k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| ALASKA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP INC | $61,000 |
| KOTZEBUE IRA COUNCIL | $60,000 |
| QIZHJEH VENA ALASKA | $50,000 |
| OUTER COAST | $25,000 |
| BREAD LINE INC | $20,000 |
| PACIFIC COMMUNITY OF ALASKA | $20,000 |
| UMOJA COWORKING & INCUBATOR | $15,000 |
| BLOSSOM HOUSE | $10,000 |
| EMMONAK WOMEN'S SHELTER | $10,000 |
| BERING SEA WOMEN'S GROUP | $10,000 |
| EVANSVILLE TRIBAL COUNCIL | $10,000 |
| ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS | $10,000 |
| CIRCLE NATIVE COMMUNITY | $10,000 |
| INTERIOR WEATHERIZATION INC | $8,917 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY24–24, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +16% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 14 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, 23% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $346k 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
- APAlaska Public Interest Research Group5× · 2020–2024 · $205k · revenue +322%
- ACALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS4× · 2021–2024 · $84k · revenue +181%
- AOASSOCIATION OF INTERIOR NATIVE EDUCATORS3× · 2021–2023 · $80k · revenue +500%
Funded once
- AIAWARE Incone grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue -20%
- IIIdentity Incgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +73%
- NLNO LIMITS INCORPORATEDone grant, 2020 · $10k
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.
To Harness the power of the diverse people of Alaska and their communities to empower and support transformative social change. Stand Up Alaska is an Alaskan-led movement providing intersectional and diverse views on issues affecting all…
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…
To advance solutions that build the resilience and sustainability of Alaska, for its current and future residents and the natural systems upon which they depend.
Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…
Aknwrc is dedicated to strengthening local, tribal government's responses through community organizing efforts advocating for the safety of women and children in their communities and homes, especially against domestic and sexual abuse and…
To increase affordable housing and end homelessness in Alaska.
Building partnerships, building trails. Working to build trails across the state and build capacity for trail organizations.
To operate an engagement center which provides peer support, resources and consumer directed programs to help mental health consumers, homeless persons and those recovering from substance abuse.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Star Community Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Identity Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
21 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. 21 of the 31 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 Public Interest Research Group ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION OF INTERIOR NATIVE EDUCATORS ↗
- Who funds UMOJA COWORKING & INCUBATOR ↗
- Who funds Data for Indigenous Justice ↗
- Who funds QIZHJEH VENA ALASKA ↗
- Who funds AWARE Inc ↗
- Who funds Choosing Our Roots ↗
- Who funds Identity Inc ↗
- Who funds OUTER COAST ↗
- Who funds PACIFIC COMMUNITY OF ALASKA ↗
- Who funds THE BREAD LINE INC ↗
- Who funds ALASKA INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds INTERIOR WEATHERIZATION INC ↗
- Who funds Bering Sea Womans Group ↗
- Who funds NO LIMITS INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds EMMONAK WOMEN'S SHELTER ↗
- Who funds North Star Community Foundation ↗
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: The Alaska Community Foundation · Rasmuson Foundation · The Pride Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Native Movement 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Native Movement?
Find your warmest path to Native Movement 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.