Skip to content

· Public charity

Norton Sound Health Corporation

To provide quality health services and promote wellness within our people and environment.

$1.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$65k
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 2024.

Human Services$1.3MHousing & Shelter$575kHealth$547kArts & Culture$301kRecreation & Sports$290kReligion$160kPublic Benefit$152kFood & Nutrition$145kOther$0
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 16 grants below total $390,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,185,368 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $795,368 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k14 grants · $275k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $115k
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$606M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NOME COMMUNITY CENTER$65,000
KAWAREK INC$50,000
VILLAGE OF SOLOMON$30,000
NATIVE VILLAGE OF SHAKTOOLIK$25,000
NATIVE VILLAGE OF UNALAKLEET$25,000
NATIVE VILLAGE OF TELLER$25,000
NATIVE VILLAGE OF BREVIG MISSION$25,000
CHINIK ESKIMO COMMUNITY$25,000
BERING STRAIT SCHOOL DISTRICT$20,000
NATIVE VILLAGE OF SAINT MICHAEL$15,000
NATIVE VILLAGE OF DIOMEDE$15,000
MARY'S IGLOO TRADITIONAL COUNCIL$15,000
NATIVE VILLAGE OF SAVOONGA$15,000
NATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK$15,000
NOME ESKIMO COMMUNITY$15,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 18%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 18%NATIVE VILLAGE OF ST MICHAEL: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF ST MICHAEL: $22k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF BREVIG MISSION: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF BREVIG MISSION: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF UNALAKLEET: $1.0M → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF UNALAKLEET: $40k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SHAKTOOLIK: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF UNALAKLEET: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SHAKTOOLIK: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF UNALAKLEET: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SAKTOOLIK: $20k → 20%BERING STRAIT SCHOOL DISTRICT: $20k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF UNALAKLEET: $16k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF KOYUK: $22k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SAVOONGA: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SAVOONGA: $16k → 20%STEBBINS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: $20k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF WALES: $20k → 20%NOME COMMUNITY CENTER: $250k → 20%KAWERAK INC: $152k → 20%NOME COMMUNITY CENTER: $137k → 20%NOME EMERGENCY SHELTER: $110k → 20%NOME EMERGENCY SHELTER TEAM: $90k → 20%NOME COMMUNITY CENTER: $65k → 20%NOME EMERGENCY SHELTER TEAM: $65k → 20%NOME EMERGENCY SHELTER TEAM: $60k → 20%RUN IT WILD LLC: $50k → 20%KAWAREK INC: $50k → 20%NOME ESKIMO COMMUNITY: $41k → 20%VILLAGE OF SOLOMON: $33k → 20%VILLAGE OF SOLOMON: $30k → 20%CITY OF GOLOVIN: $30k → 20%KING ISLAND NATIVE COMMUNITY: $25k → 20%VILLAGE OF SOLOMON: $25k → 20%KAWARAK INC: $25k → 20%CHINIK ESKIMO COMMUNITY: $25k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF DIOMEDE: $20k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF COUNCIL: $20k → 20%KING ISLAND NATIVE COMMUNITY: $20k → 20%VILLAGE OF SOLOMON: $20k → 20%KAWERAK INC: $18k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF SHISHMAREF: $25k → 20%CITY OF TELLER: $40k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF TELLER: $25k → 20%TELLER TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $20k → 20%MARY'S IGLOO TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $20k → 20%NATIVE VILLAGE OF ELIM: $17k → 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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.8M · 25 repeat orgs$216k to everyone else

25 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
8

Total granted

$3.8M
$181k

Still filing today

16%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • NV
    Native Village of Unalakleet
    8× · 2018–2025 · $1.2M
  • NC
    NOME COMMUNITY CENTER INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $477k · revenue -11%
  • NE
    Nome Emergency Shelter Team
    4× · 2017–2022 · $325k · 28% of their budget

Funded once

  • RI
    RUN IT WILD LLC
    one grant, 2021 · $50k
  • CO
    City of Teller
    3× · 2018–2023 · $40k
  • CO
    City of Golovin
    one grant, 2018 · $30k
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

5 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. 5 of the 35 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/5
Grantees still filing
3/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Native Village of Unalakleet: $1,151,500 · OtherNative Village of UnalakleetNOME COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $477,478 · OtherNOME COMMUNITY CENTER INCKAWERAK INC: $244,842 · OtherKAWERAK INCNOME ESKIMO COMMUNITY: $141,851 · OtherVILLAGE OF SOLOMON: $137,500 · Other+29 more: $1,533,392 · Other+29 moreNome Emergency Shelter Team: $325,000 · Housing & ShelterNome Emer…
Other$3,686,563Housing & Shelter$325,000

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 budgetNOME COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $477,478 over 5y, 9.7% of budgetNome Emergency Shelter Team: $325,000 over 4y, 28% of budgetKAWERAK INC: $244,842 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetSHAKTOOLIK NATIVE STORE NATIVE VILLAGE OF SHAKTOOLIK: $65,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetGAMBELL NATIVE STORE NATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELL: $42,500 over 3y, 0.2% 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 NOME COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Nome Emergency Shelter Team ↗
  • Who funds KAWERAK INC ↗
  • Who funds SHAKTOOLIK NATIVE STORE NATIVE VILLAGE OF SHAKTOOLIK ↗
  • Who funds GAMBELL NATIVE STORE NATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELL ↗

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 Development CorporationAK34.8× affinity14 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation · Kawerak Inc · Rasmuson Foundation · The Alaska Community Foundation · Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

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 Norton Sound Health Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Norton Sound Health Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    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 35 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 Norton Sound Health’s filings →

    More from the funding graph