· Private foundation
Pax Am Foundation Trust
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k13 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $131k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THOREAU COLLEGE | $131,000 |
| YOUTH INITIATIVE HIGH SCH | $16,750 |
| THRESHOLD CARE CIRCLE | $3,000 |
| LIVING FAITH FOOD PANTRY | $2,500 |
| RED OAK OUTDOOR SCHOOL | $2,500 |
| PLEASANT RIDGE WALDORF SCHOOL | $2,180 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| ADULT TEEN CHALLENGE | $500 |
| CRAWFORD STEWARDSHIP PROJECT | $250 |
| ORGANIC EYE | $250 |
| KGAP | $250 |
| JOE WAS JUST JOE | $250 |
| LAKOTA WALDORF SCHOOL | $250 |
| VALLEY STEWARSHIP NETWORK | $250 |
| AQUINAS ACADEMY | $250 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
29 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- TCTHOREAU COLLEGE INC6× · 2020–2025 · $663k · revenue +8% · 41% of their budget
- PRPLEASANT RIDGE SCHOOL INC5× · 2017–2025 · $8k · revenue +46%
- CICOULEECAP INC4× · 2020–2024 · $2k · revenue +43%
Funded once
- CCCHRISTIAN CENTER INCone grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue 0%
- CCCODMAN COMMUNITY FARMS INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +329%
- SCSU CASA CATHOLIC WORKES COMMUNITYone grant, 2020 · $3k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
When people, land, and community are as one, all three members prosper; when they relate not as members but as competing interests, all three are exploited. by consulting nature as the source and measure of that membership, the land…
Omaha Permaculture fosters community through sustainable land stewardship.
To promote community supported agriculture (csa) in wisconsin and strive to ensure that all families have access to locally produced, organic food and have strong connections to their farms, food, and community.
The mission of the Organic Farmers Association is to provide a strong and unified national voice for domestic certified organic producers so that organic agriculture will become the basis of a viable United States food and agricultural…
To keep state residents educated and informed, in a nonpartisan manner, on a broad range of wisconsin public issues and policy matters.
The northeast organic farming association of vermont promotes organic practices to build an ecomnomically viable, ecologically sound and socially just vermont agricultural system that benefits all living things.
The door county land trust is a local, non-governmental non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve door county's exceptional lands and waters forever.
As a learning center, the organic farm school trains new farmers to develop and manage farms focused on ecological, economic and social regeneration - simultaneously offerring opportunities for our community and others to learn about their…
Promote corn and corn products and improve corn profitability. influence public policy and increase corn usage through livestock feeding and new domestic products.
Midwest dairy works with others to give consumers an excellent dairy experience increasing sales, fostering innovation, and inspiring consumer confidence of dairy products and practices.
To protect, conserve, and enhance wisconsin's natural resources by advocating for and supporting county conservation efforts, for current and future generations.
Promote, represent & advocate for the cooperative way of doing business
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wolakota Waldorf Society and the most unlike its peers is The Port Ministries. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
21 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 21 of the 53 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds THOREAU COLLEGE INC ↗
- Who funds PLEASANT RIDGE SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds CHRISTIAN CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CODMAN COMMUNITY FARMS INC ↗
- Who funds WOLAKOTA WALDORF SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds COULEECAP INC ↗
- Who funds The Port Ministries ↗
- Who funds Beyond Pesticides ↗
- Who funds VALLEY STEWARDSHIP NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds ORGANICEYE INC ↗
- Who funds SHRINE OF OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE INC ↗
- Who funds THE CORNUCOPIA INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE WESTON A PRICE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF SAN LUCAS ↗
- Who funds CRAWFORD STEWARDSHIP PROJECT LTD ↗
- Who funds INNOVATIVE SCHOOLS NETWORK INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Pax Am Foundation Trust funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.