Skip to content
Southcentral Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Southcentral Foundation

Southcentral Foundation (SCF) was incorporated as a nonprofit organization under Alaska state law in 1982.

$2.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$292k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$43MCrime & Legal$1.2MHuman Services$465kHousing & Shelter$198k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $1,068,978, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,156,636 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,087,658 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

  • $50k–250k7 grants · $777k
  • $250k+1 grant · $292k
$105,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$1.7B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON$292,312
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANK$189,565
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF$123,968
F5 PROJECT INC$105,000
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAG$99,750
STONE SOUP GROUP$92,916
MAYO CLINIC$85,794
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR ME$79,673
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–24, $1.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Cook Inlet Tribal Council Inc: $298k → 10%Cook Inlet Tribal Council Inc: $192k → 10%Cook Inlet Tribal Council In: $190k → 10%Abused Womens Aid in Crisis: $101k → 10%Abused Womens Aid in Crisis: $75k → 10%Abused Womens Aid in Crisis: $75k → 10%Abused Womens Aid in Crisis: $69k → 10%Abused Womens Aid in Crisis: $56k → 10%Abused Womens Aid in Crisis: $38k → 10%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

AK
WA
MT
ND
MN
IL
OR
WY
UT
CO
AZ
NM
AR
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.

23%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11M · 17 repeat orgs$35M to everyone else

17 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
18

Total granted

$11M
$35M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+107%

Still filing today

41%
6%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesEducationCrime & LegalCommunity 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

  • CI
    Cook Inlet Tribal Council
    3× · 2017–2024 · $680k · revenue +50%
  • AW
    ABUSED WOMEN'S AID IN CRISIS INC
    6× · 2017–2023 · $413k · revenue +18%
  • AP
    Alaska Pacific University
    8× · 2017–2024 · $292k · revenue +57%

Funded once

  • AN
    ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUMgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $33M · revenue +107%
  • TG
    Tribal Government of St Paul Island
    one grant, 2017 · $1.3M
  • AC
    ALASKA CARES
    one grant, 2017 · $300k
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Jamhi Health & Wellness Inc

We provide a comprehensive, co occurring disorder-capable, community behavioral health center. we provide quality care using best practices designed to promote health, wellness, self-determination, and recovery. the service area is the…

Health
2
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest

To provide high-quality, affordable health care services to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve.

Health
3
Mountain Pacific Quality Health Foundation

Dedicated to empowering community partners to achieve health care quality goals.

Health
4
Sea Mar Community Health Centers

Sea mar community health centers is a community-based organization committed to providing quality, comprehensive health, human, housing, educational, and cultural services to diverse communities, specializing in service to latinos.

Health
5
Altarum Institute

Altarum is focused on improving the health of individuals with fewer financial resources and populations disenfranchised by the health care system. we drive impactful changes in four domains: 1) transform health service delivery - we work…

Science & Tech
6
MaineHealth

MaineHealth is a voluntary, not-for-profit community and referral system of hospitals, dedicated to providing high quality health care services to all persons who seek care regardless of their sex, race, religion, age, color, sexual…

Health
7
Children's Hospital Corporation

Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service

Health
8
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado

To provide high-quality, affordable health care services to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve.

Health
9
Alaska Hospital & Healthcare Association

The Alaska Hospital & Healthcare Association (AHHA) is a non-profit trade association representing more than 65 hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and other healthcare partners.Our members are distributed across…

—
10
Providence Health & Services - Washington

As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.

Health
11
Cook Children's Physician Network

Knowing that every child's life is sacred, our promise is to improve the health of every child in our region through the prevention and treatment of illness, disease, and injury.

Health
12
Pacmed Clinics

Our mission is to provide respectful, high-quality, patient-focused healthcare to each person and to the communities we serve. pacmed welcomes patients from the well insured to those who cannot afford healthcare.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cook Inlet Tribal Council; the most unlike its peers is F5 Project. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 36 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM: $32,609,780 · HealthALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM+3 more: $403,666 · HealthUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $2,515,617 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONUNIVERSITY OF ALASKA: $1,790,897 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ALASKATribal Government of St Paul Island: $1,320,649 · OtherTribal Government of St …CHICKALOON VILLAGE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL: $1,061,113 · OtherCHICKALOON VILLAGE TRADI…OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $816,226 · OtherOREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE …THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: $413,538 · Other+21 more: $2,180,173 · Other+21 moreF5 PROJECT: $1,113,139 · Crime & LegalCook Inlet Tribal Council: $679,806 · Human ServicesABUSED WOMEN'S AID IN CRISIS INC: $413,000 · Human ServicesAlaska Pacific University: $292,246 · EducationSTONE SOUP GROUP: $280,946 · Community Improvement
Health$33,013,446Other$10,098,213Crime & Legal$1,113,139Human Services$1,092,806Education$292,246Community Improvement$280,946

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM: $32,609,780 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetF5 PROJECT: $1,113,139 over 3y, 14% of budgetCook Inlet Tribal Council: $679,806 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetABUSED WOMEN'S AID IN CRISIS INC: $413,000 over 6y, 2.6% of budgetMAYO CLINIC: $318,286 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAlaska Pacific University: $292,246 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetSTONE SOUP GROUP: $280,946 over 4y, 4.5% of budgetKAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON: $52,385 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $32,995 over 2y, 0.0% 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 ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM ↗
  • Who funds F5 PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Cook Inlet Tribal Council ↗
  • Who funds ABUSED WOMEN'S AID IN CRISIS INC ↗
  • Who funds MAYO CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds Alaska Pacific University ↗
  • Who funds STONE SOUP GROUP ↗
  • Who funds KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON ↗
  • Who funds SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ↗

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.

Alaska Native Tribal …The Alaska Community …Valley Hospital Assoc…First Nations Develop…American Heart Associ…Cook Inlet Tribal Cou…Rasmuson FoundationAlaska Conservation F…World Learning IncM J Murdock Charitabl…American Cancer Socie…Johns Hopkins Univers…
Alaska Native Tribal Health ConsortiumAK22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium · The Alaska Community Foundation · Valley Hospital Association Inc Dba Mat-Su Health Foundation · First Nations Development Institute · American Heart Association Inc · Cook Inlet Tribal Council · Rasmuson Foundation · Alaska Conservation Foundation · World Learning Inc · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · American Cancer Society Inc · Johns Hopkins University

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 Southcentral Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Southcentral Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 36 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 Southcentral’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