Skip to content
Foundation Dossiers

Washington · Private foundation

Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation

Its FY2019 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$148k
Granted FY2019
5
Grants FY2019
3
Organizations funded FY2019
Read the full brief

Read this first · the figures below need context

95% of Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation’s FY2019 grant dollars went to Kitsap Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2019 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Median grant, FY2019
$2,000
Largest grant, FY2019
$139,572
States reached, FY2019
2
Applications
Preselected organizations only
Per its most recent filing; check its own site

Top grantees

Largest recipients by total granted, FY2019 to FY2019, and the share of each one’s budget the grants supplied at peak.

GranteeTotal grantedYearsShare of their budget
Baylor University$2,00010%

Plus 2 recipients with no EIN on record ($6k), not named here.

Compare Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation with peer funders

About Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation

How much does Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation give?
Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation reported 5 grants totaling $147,572 in its FY2019 IRS filing.
What does Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation fund?
By grant dollars over FY2019 to FY2019, its largest causes are Philanthropy (95%), Education (5%).
Who are Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation's largest grantees?
By total granted over FY2019 to FY2019: Baylor University ($2k).
Does Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation accept unsolicited applications?
Its most recent filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and does not take unsolicited requests. Check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Where is Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation based?
Judge Cc Chavelle Foundation is based in WA.

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 4 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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