Skip to content
Ch & Gf Pajeau Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ch & Gf Pajeau Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$44k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$9k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0164% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Animals$106kEnvironment$19kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,544
Median grant
9
States reached
$765k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATION$8,860
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER$5,759
FOR OUR FRIENDS$5,316
NEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC$4,430
ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM$3,544
NATIONAL AVIARY PITTSBURGH INC$3,544
SPAY AND STAY$3,544
OPERATION TOPCAT$3,544
PEEWEES PET ADOPTION WORLD$2,215
Individual grant recipient$1,772
Individual grant recipient$1,772
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 (FY22–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 60% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CATS AROUND TOWN: $2k → 10%NEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC: $11k → 7%NATIONAL AVIARY: $5k → 11%FOR OUR FRIENDS: $5k → 13%ABBE FREELAND: $3k → 19%WHARTON COUNTY STRAY PET OUTREACH TEAM: $4k → 15%PEE WEE'S PET ADOPTION: $4k → 17%MICHIGAN WILDLIFE: $10k → 9%OPERATION TOPCAT: $5k → 12%ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM: $4k → 11%SPAY AND STAY: $4k → 8%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW &: $8k → 14%ROCKFISH WILDLIFE: $10k → 13%CATS AROUND TOWN: $2k → 10%NEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC: $6k → 7%NATIONAL AVIARY: $4k → 11%FOR OUR FRIENDS: $2k → 13%ABBE FREELAND: $2k → 19%PEE WEE'S PET ADOPTION: $2k → 17%MICHIGAN WILDLIFE: $10k → 9%OPERATION TOPCAT: $4k → 12%ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM: $4k → 11%SPAY AND STAY: $4k → 8%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER: $6k → 14%ROCKFISH WILDLIFE: $4k → 13%CATS AROUND TOWN: $2k → 10%NEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC: $5k → 7%NATIONAL AVIARY: $4k → 11%FOR OUR FRIENDS: $2k → 13%ABBE FREELAND: $2k → 19%PEEWEES PET ADOPTION WORLD: $2k → 17%MICHIGAN WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATION: $9k → 9%OPERATION TOPCAT: $4k → 12%ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM: $4k → 11%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW &: $6k → 14%ROCKFISH WILDLIFE: $4k → 13%NEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC: $4k → 7%NATIONAL AVIARY PITTSBURGH INC: $4k → 11%FOR OUR FRIENDS: $1k → 13%MICHIGAN WILDLIFE: $8k → 9%OPERATION TOPCAT: $4k → 12%ENVIRONMENTAL LAW &: $5k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
MI
NY
MA
PA
CO
VA
DE
NC
TX
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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$168k · 12 repeat orgs$33k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +9% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
4

Total granted

$168k
$17k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+9%
+8%

Still filing today

50%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentOther
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

  • NEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $25k · revenue +741%
  • NA
    NATIONAL AVIARY IN PITTSBURGH INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $16k · revenue +9%
  • RM
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM
    3× · 2022–2025 · $11k · revenue +54%

Funded once

  • NE
    NEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $5k
  • EL
    ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $4k
  • RM
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM
    one grant, 2020 · $4k
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
Forever Wild Wildlife Rescue
Animals
2
Pom and the Hound Animal Refuge

Animal Welfare

—
3
Wild Souls Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation
Animals
4
Hart

Animal shelter and rescue

Animals
5
Mountain Tails Wildlife Rehab

Wildlife rehabitation

Animals
6
Predators of the Heart Dba Because We Matter Exotic Animal Res

Operation of a wildlife rescue that is usda licensed and insured, providing forever homes, care and rehabilitation for exotic animals that are released into our care from government agencies(i.e. animal control, fish & wildlife), and from…

Youth Development
7
Friends of Feral Felines

Friends of Feral Felines provided Trap, Neuter, Vaccinate, Return (TNVR) subsidies for 1,919 unowned community cats

Animals
8
Centre Wildlife Care

Licensed organization dedicated to caring for injured, orphaned, sick and displaced wildlife for the purpose of releasing them back into the wild.

Animals
9
Pound Pets Inc

Animal Rescue - finding homes for abandoned animals in Granite City, spaying and neutering stray animals and feral cats

Animals
10
Abandoned and Feral Cat Friends

Humanely decrease the abandoned and feral cat population through the trap, neuter, return management program

Animals
11
You Too Animal Rescue

Feral animal care

Animals
12
Rift Valley Wildlife Clinics

A not for profit organization dedicated to improving the welfare of domestic animals and wildlife

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Aviary in Pittsburgh Inc; the most unlike its peers is Operation Topcat. 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, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 19 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $27,720 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $18,386 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $18,254 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $6,551 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPEE WEE'S PET ADOPTION: $5,966 · OtherPEE WEE'S PET ADOPTIONIndividual grant recipient: $5,416 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER: $5,000 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER: $4,000 · OtherROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM: $4,000 · Other+1 more: $2,215 · OtherNEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC: $25,451 · AnimalsNEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INCOPERATION TOPCAT: $16,243 · AnimalsOPERATION TOPCATNATIONAL AVIARY IN PITTSBURGH INC: $16,243 · AnimalsNATIONAL AVIARY IN PITTSBURGH INCFOR OUR FRIENDS INC: $9,549 · AnimalsFOR OUR FRIENDS INCSPAY AND STAY: $7,044 · AnimalsSPAY AND STAYWHARTON COUNTY STRAY PET OUTREACH TEAM: $3,500 · AnimalsROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM: $11,243 · EnvironmentROCKY MOUNTAIN…MICHIGAN WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATIO: $8,860 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN WILDL…ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $5,759 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL …
Other$97,508Animals$78,030Environment$25,862

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC: $25,451 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetOPERATION TOPCAT: $16,243 over 4y, 6.8% of budgetNATIONAL AVIARY IN PITTSBURGH INC: $16,243 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM: $11,243 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetFOR OUR FRIENDS INC: $9,549 over 4y, 3.0% of budgetSPAY AND STAY: $7,044 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $5,759 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWHARTON COUNTY STRAY PET OUTREACH TEAM: $3,500 over 1y, 2.4% 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 NEW ENGLAND WILDLIFE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds OPERATION TOPCAT ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL AVIARY IN PITTSBURGH INC ↗
  • Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAPTOR PROGRAM ↗
  • Who funds FOR OUR FRIENDS INC ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN WILDLIFE HABITAT FOUNDATIO ↗
  • Who funds SPAY AND STAY ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST ↗
  • Who funds WHARTON COUNTY STRAY PET OUTREACH TEAM ↗

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.

Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Paypal Charitable Giv…Amazonsmile Foundation
Jpmorgan Chase FoundationNY10.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Paypal Charitable Giving 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 Ch & Gf Pajeau Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ch & Gf Pajeau Foundation. 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • New England Wildlife Center Inc: 1% of 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 · 0–10%
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 19 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 Ch & Gf Pajeau’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