Skip to content
Cadeaux I Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Cadeaux I Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$30k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Education$139kAnimals$119kEnvironment$50kHealth$20kYouth Development$19kReligion$16kPublic Safety & Disaster$13kHuman Services$6kOther$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $5k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
$2,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$741k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PI BETA PHI FOUNDATION$25,000
CAMP JOHN MARC$2,500
WOMEN'S AUXILIARY TO CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER$2,500
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 (FY24–24, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%TWICE THE LOVE FOUNDATION: $1k → 14%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.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$301k · 15 repeat orgs$118k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +56% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
21

Total granted

$301k
$90k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
0%

Still filing today

47%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 8% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthCommunity ImprovementArts & CulturePublic Safety & DisasterRecreation & SportsHuman ServicesOther
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

  • EW
    EXOTIC WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION
    5× · 2019–2023 · $105k · revenue +104%
  • WA
    WOMENS AUXILIARY TO THE CHILDRENS MEDICAL CENTER
    7× · 2019–2025 · $14k · revenue +105%
  • EC
    EWA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
    6× · 2019–2024 · $14k · revenue +224%

Funded once

  • UG
    UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue +261%
  • LI
    LEAKEY ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue -99%
  • HP
    HIGHLAND PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
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
East Texas Arboretum and Botanical Society Inc

Management and operation of the arboretum.

Environment
2
Genetic Resource Association of Texas
Health
3
Cca Texas Fund

To support coastal conservation association in carrying out the charitable and educational purpose for which it was organized and is operated, namely, promoting and advancing the preservation, conservation and protection of marine, plant…

Environment
4
Southwest Environmental Center

To promote and protect Wildlife

—
5
The University of Texas Foundation No 2

To support the university of texas system

—
6
Texas Cowboys Against Cancer

Fundraising to support cancer patients in the cowboy community

Health
7
Friends of the Texas a&M University Libraries

A) to encourage an understanding and appreciatiion of the work of the texas a&m university libraries;b) to build and develop a greater realization of the importance of the texas a&m university libraries to the future development of the…

Education
8
Laredo Cancer Society

Cancer awareness and support

Health
9
Eula Volunteer Fire Department

Fire suppression, emergency medical services, community safety

Public Safety & Disaster
10
Garrison Volunteer Fire Department

To provide fire and medical emergency services for the city of garrison, tx and the surrounding districts.

Public Safety & Disaster
11
Texas Clean Energy Coalition
—
12
The University of Texas Foundation No 1

To support the university of texas system

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Upper Guadalupe River Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Frio Canyon Ems Inc. 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

15 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. 15 of the 38 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
9/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EXOTIC WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION: $105,000 · OtherEXOTIC WILDLIFE ASSOCIATIONJESUIT DALLAS FOUNDATION: $38,000 · OtherJESUIT DALLAS FOUNDATIONLEAKEY ISD SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $29,250 · OtherLEAKEY ISD SCHOLARSHIP FUNDJESUIT COLLEGE PREPARATORY SCHOOL OF DALLAS INC: $27,520 · OtherJESUIT COLLEGE PREPARATORY SCHOOL OF DALLAS INCPI BETA PHI FOUNDATION: $25,000 · OtherPI BETA PHI FOUNDATIONCAMP JOHN MARC SPECIAL FOR KIDS: $18,950 · OtherCAMP JOHN MARC SPECIAL FOR KIDSLEAKEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $13,750 · OtherGOOD SHEPHERD EPISCOPAL SCHOOL: $12,500 · OtherWESLEY PREP A MINISTRY OF LOVERS LANE UNITED METHODIST CHUCH: $10,500 · Other+20 more: $34,165 · Other+20 moreUPPER GUADALUPE RIVER CENTER INC: $50,000 · Recreation & SportsUPPER GUADALU…WOMENS AUXILIARY TO THE CHILDRENS MEDICAL CENTER: $14,200 · HealthFRIO CANYON EMS INC: $4,000 · HealthBaylor Health Care System Foundation: $1,000 · HealthEWA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $13,500 · Arts & CultureLEAKEY ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · EducationLeakey Volunteer Fire Department Inc: $7,500 · Public Safety & DisasterJUNIOR LEAGUE OF DALLAS INC: $2,500 · Community ImprovementFRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION: $1,500 · Community Improvement
Other$314,635Recreation & Sports$50,000Health$19,200Arts & Culture$13,500Education$10,000Public Safety & Disaster$7,500Community Improvement$4,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEXOTIC WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION: $105,000 over 5y, 5.5% of budgetUPPER GUADALUPE RIVER CENTER INC: $50,000 over 1y, 8.9% of budgetPI BETA PHI FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWOMENS AUXILIARY TO THE CHILDRENS MEDICAL CENTER: $14,200 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetEWA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: $13,500 over 6y, 15% of budgetLEAKEY ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetLeakey Volunteer Fire Department Inc: $7,500 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetFRIO CANYON EMS INC: $4,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetTHE CRYSTAL CHARITY BALL: $3,100 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetEQUEST: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetJUNIOR LEAGUE OF DALLAS INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION: $1,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetTWICE THE LOVE FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetBaylor Health Care System Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCONSERVATION CENTERS FOR SPECIES SURVIVAL: $250 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 EXOTIC WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds PI BETA PHI FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WOMENS AUXILIARY TO THE CHILDRENS MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds EWA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LEAKEY ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Leakey Volunteer Fire Department Inc ↗
  • Who funds FRIO CANYON EMS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CRYSTAL CHARITY BALL ↗
  • Who funds EQUEST ↗
  • Who funds JUNIOR LEAGUE OF DALLAS INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds TWICE THE LOVE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Baylor Health Care System Foundation ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION CENTERS FOR SPECIES SURVIVAL ↗

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.

The Dallas FoundationCommunities Foundatio…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Dallas FoundationTX15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Dallas Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Cadeaux I Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cadeaux I Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 38 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-PF 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 Cadeaux I’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