Skip to content

· Public charity

Tanana Chiefs Conference

Tanana Chiefs Conference provides a unified voice in advancing sovereign tribal governments through the promotion of physical and mental wellness, education, socioeconomic development, and culture of the interior Alaska native people.

$15M
Granted FY2020
39
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$440k
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, FY2018 to 2020.

Human Services$12MCivil Rights$4.5MCommunity Improvement$1.4MHousing & Shelter$469kHealth$8k
02FY2020 · 39 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 39 grants below total $7,405,317, the rows itemized in this filing. The $14,674,759 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $7,269,442 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 · FY2020

  • Under $10k2 grants · $15k
  • $50k–250k31 grants · $5.4M
  • $250k+6 grants · $2.0M
$197,344
Median grant
1
States reached
$473M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Minto Village Council$439,760
Tanacross Village Council$348,917
Alatna Tribal Council$324,332
Nenana Native Council$304,349
Tetlin Village Council$290,860
Venetie Village Council$255,102
Healy Lake Trad Council$245,014
Nikolai Edzeno Vill Council$235,566
Chalkyitsik Village Council$233,175
Northway Village Council$226,369
Stevens Vill Tribal Council$224,544
Takotna Tribal Council$212,075
Manley Village Council$208,046
Tanana Tribal Council$207,046
Evansville Tribal Council$207,046
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 (FY18–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Stevens Vill Tribal Council: $225k → 8%Telida Village Council: $169k → 10%Eagle Village Council: $203k → 13%Nulato Tribal Council: $185k → 21%Stevens Vill Tribal Council: $210k → 8%Eagle Village Council: $165k → 13%Tanacross Village Council: $349k → 13%Nulato Tribal Council: $167k → 21%Tanacross Village Council: $253k → 13%Tanacross Village Council: $225k → 13%Tetlin Village Council: $291k → 13%Minto Village Council: $440k → 21%Dot Lake Village Council: $311k → 13%Minto Village Council: $166k → 21%Dot Lake Village Council: $228k → 13%Dot Lake Village Council: $201k → 13%Birch Creek Tribal Council: $251k → 21%Northway Village Council: $226k → 13%Birch Creek Tribal Council: $203k → 21%Northway Village Council: $183k → 13%Healy Lake Trad Council: $245k → 13%Healy Lake Trad Council: $209k → 13%Healy Lake Trad Council: $167k → 13%Manley Village Council: $208k → 21%Holy Cross Tribal Council: $197k → 21%Arctic Village Council: $173k → 21%Arctic Village Council: $168k → 21%Evansville Tribal Council: $207k → 21%Venetie Village Council: $255k → 21%Venetie Village Council: $229k → 21%Venetie Village Council: $190k → 21%Tanana Tribal Council: $207k → 21%Chalkyitsik Village Council: $233k → 21%Takotna Tribal Council: $230k → 21%Nikolai Edzeno Vill Council: $236k → 21%Takotna Tribal Council: $212k → 21%Huslia Tribal Council: $184k → 21%Louden Tribal Council: $197k → 21%Allakaket Village Council: $371k → 21%Allakaket Village Council: $348k → 21%Alatna Tribal Council: $324k → 21%Allakaket Village Council: $206k → 21%Alatna Tribal Council: $201k → 21%Alatna Tribal Council: $201k → 21%Ruby Tribal Council: $170k → 21%Nenana Native Council: $304k → 21%Nenana Native Council: $211k → 21%Nenana Native Council: $190k → 21%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$18M · 37 repeat orgs$15k to everyone else

37 repeat relationships: 37 still active in FY2020, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

37
2

Total granted

$18M
$15k

Still filing today

0%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20
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

  • AV
    Allakaket Village Council
    3× · 2018–2020 · $925k
  • TV
    Tanacross Village Council
    3× · 2018–2020 · $827k
  • DL
    Dot Lake Village Council
    3× · 2018–2020 · $740k

Funded once

  • TN
    Tok Native Association
    one grant, 2020 · $8k
  • FN
    Fairbanks Native Association
    one grant, 2020 · $8k · revenue +12%
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

1 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. 1 of the 39 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)
1/1
Grantees still filing
1/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Allakaket Village Council: $925,115 · OtherTanacross Village Council: $827,166 · OtherDot Lake Village Council: $740,395 · OtherMinto Village Council: $729,759 · OtherAlatna Tribal Council: $726,611 · OtherNenana Native Council: $705,248 · OtherVenetie Village Council: $673,905 · OtherHealy Lake Trad Council: $620,329 · Other+30 more: $12,249,490 · Other+30 moreFairbanks Native Association: $7,500 · Health
Other$18,198,018Health$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFairbanks Native Association: $7,500 over 1y, 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 Fairbanks Native Association ↗

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 Health ConsortiumAK24× affinity9 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium · The Alaska Community Foundation · Rasmuson Foundation · Rural Alaska Community Action Program · Alaska Conservation 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 Tanana Chiefs Conference funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Tanana Chiefs Conference. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%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 · 0–90%
    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 Tanana Chiefs Conference?

    Find your warmest path to Tanana Chiefs Conference 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 39 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Tanana Chiefs Conference’s filings →

    More from the funding graph