Skip to content

· Private foundation

Chouinard Charitable Irrev-Main

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.

$175k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$35k
Largest
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Religion$363kHousing & Shelter$334kHealth$242kHuman Services$55kFood & Nutrition$20kCivil Rights$10kEducation$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $170k
$15,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ST VINCENT DEPAUL$35,000
GOOD NEIGHBOR ALLIANCE$31,000
ST VINCENT DEPAUL$25,000
CARENET PREGNANCY CENTER$20,000
BISBEE COALITION OF THE HOMELESS$15,000
VALOR HOUSE FOUNDATION$12,000
HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION$12,000
LIVE ACTION$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
CATHOLIC FOUNDATION OF THE DIOCESE$5,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $72k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION: $20k → 17%HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION: $20k → 17%HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION: $12k → 17%HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION: $12k → 17%HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION: $8k → 17%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 14% of Chouinard Charitable Irrev-Main’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 92% of the giving stays in AZ; by stated purpose, 89%.

Chouinard Charitable Irrev-Mainlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$957k · 9 repeat orgs$181k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
11

Total granted

$957k
$154k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+103%
+127%

Still filing today

56%
18%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionHealthCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesCivil RightsOther
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

  • DC
    DIOCESAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL DIOCESE PHOENIX
    7× · 2019–2025 · $305k · revenue +103%
  • BC
    BISBEE COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS INC
    7× · 2018–2025 · $130k · revenue +158%
  • TH
    THE HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $72k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • SO
    Society of St Vincent de Paul Tucsongraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $23k · revenue +127%
  • GO
    GENERAL OPERATION FOR THE HOMELESS SHELT
    one grant, 2018 · $23k
  • H
    HOSPICE
    one grant, 2020 · $20k
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
Pro-Choice Arizona

Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…

Health
2
Arizona Ecumenical Council

Arizona Ecumenical Council dba Arizona Faith Network invites people into meaningful relationships, shared prayer and dialogue rooted in our faith traditions, and actions that influence public awareness, engagement and policy.

—
3
Arizona Behavioral Health Corporation

Providing quality, affordable supportive housing for persons with behavioral health needs in maricopa county.

Unclassified
4
Society of Saint Vincent De Paul-St Thomas Conference-Tucson

Charitable Religious Organization:

—
5
Christian Care Holding Company Inc

Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve.

Human Services
6
Agape Adoption Agency of Arizona Inc

Agape Adoption Agency of Arizona, Inc is a Christian adoption and family service agency with services and programs which promote life, love, and healing.

Human Services
7
Arizona Capital Representation Project

ACRP is a non-profit legal services organization that assists indigent persons facing the death penalty and sentenced to death in Arizona through direct representation, pro-bono consulting services and training for capital defense…

—
8
El Paso Area Christian Counseling Service

Counseling Services offering hope, healing, and restoration to hurting people, marriages, and families using respected therapy practices and solid biblical principles.

Human Services
9
The Inn of Southern Arizona Inc

Provide a caring ministry for migrants passing throught the us/mexico border

Human Services
10
House of the Good Shepherd

House of Good Shepherd serves with love and compassion women and children affected by domestic violence by offering a safe place with opportunities for emotional, educational and spiritual growth, giving hope and continued support for a…

Human Services
11
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of St Cloud

At Catholic Charities, we focus our efforts around three core pillars: Food Access, Mental Health and Housing. Guided by our mission - to serve and enhance human dignity for all people - we provide essential services and foster a sense of…

Human Services
12
Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County

Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County D/B/A Catholic Charities Washtenaw County provides diverse, holistic social services including adoption and pregnancy counseling, food and basic needs assistance, domestic and child abuse…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Good Neighbor Alliance; the most unlike its peers is Alcoholism council of cochise county verhelst reco. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

8 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. 8 of the 23 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GOOD NEIGHBOR ALLIANCE: $181,000 · OtherGOOD NEIGHBOR ALLIANCEIndividual grant recipient: $110,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCARENET PREGNANCY CENTER: $79,500 · OtherCARENET PREGNANCY CENTERSAWS SOUTHWEST INC: $29,500 · OtherGENERAL OPERATION FOR THE HOMELESS SHELT: $22,500 · OtherHOSPICE: $20,000 · OtherFOOD PURCHASEDISTRIBUTION FOR THE POOR: $20,000 · OtherTHE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF TUCSON OUR FAITH OUR HOPE OUR FUTU: $20,000 · Other+9 more: $86,000 · Other+9 moreDIOCESAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL DIOCESE PHOENIX: $305,000 · ReligionDIOCESAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIETY…Society of St Vincent de Paul Tucson: $22,500 · ReligionSociety of St Vincent de Paul Tu…BISBEE COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS INC: $130,000 · Community ImprovementBISBEE COALI…THE HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION: $71,500 · Human ServicesCARE NET PREGNANCY CENTER OF COCHISE COUNTY: $30,000 · HealthLIVE ACTION: $10,000 · Civil Rights
Other$568,500Religion$327,500Community Improvement$130,000Human Services$71,500Health$30,000Civil Rights$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDIOCESAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL DIOCESE PHOENIX: $305,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetGOOD NEIGHBOR ALLIANCE: $181,000 over 6y, 58% of budgetBISBEE COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS INC: $130,000 over 7y, 19% of budgetTHE HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION: $71,500 over 5y, 2.4% of budgetCARE NET PREGNANCY CENTER OF COCHISE COUNTY: $30,000 over 2y, 7.5% of budgetSociety of St Vincent de Paul Tucson: $22,500 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetalcoholism council of cochise county verhelst reco: $7,000 over 1y, 2.6% 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 DIOCESAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL DIOCESE PHOENIX ↗
  • Who funds GOOD NEIGHBOR ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds BISBEE COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE HOSPICE PROMISE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CARE NET PREGNANCY CENTER OF COCHISE COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds Society of St Vincent de Paul Tucson ↗
  • Who funds LIVE ACTION ↗
  • Who funds alcoholism council of cochise county verhelst reco ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Chouinard Charitable Irrev-Main funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chouinard Charitable Irrev-Main. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Chouinard Charitable Irrev-Main?

    Find your warmest path to Chouinard Charitable Irrev-Main 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 23 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 Chouinard Charitable Irrev-Main’s filings →

    More from the funding graph