· Public charity
Animal Charity Evaluators
Our mission is to find and promote the most effective ways to help animals.
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.
The 21 grants below total $2,131,780 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,648,786 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $2,517,006 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k7 grants · $191k
- $50k–250k11 grants · $1.1M
- $250k+3 grants · $877k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE HUMANE LEAGUE | $319,077 |
| WILD ANIMAL INITIATIVE INC | $307,664 |
| FAUNALYTICS | $250,726 |
| NEW ROOTS INSTITUTE | $205,697 |
| AQUATIC LIFE INSTITUTE INC | $204,544 |
| LEGAL IMPACT FOR CHICKENS | $171,019 |
| GOOD FOOD WORLD FOUNDATION | $102,654 |
| A WELL-FED WORLD | $66,000 |
| PROVEG INTERNATIONAL INC | $55,000 |
| PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND | $55,000 |
| KARUNA FOUNDATION | $52,560 |
| THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE | $51,259 |
| ANIMAL ADVOCACY AFRICA | $50,000 |
| PRO-ANIMAL FUTURE | $50,000 |
| FISH WELFARE INITIATIVE | $48,780 |
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 (FY17–24, $545k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 94% 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
Grants abroad, by region — $2.5M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: SUPPORT MISSION
Stated purpose: SUPPORT MISSION
Stated purpose: SUPPORT MISSION
Stated purpose: SUPPORT MISSION
Stated purpose: SUPPORT MISSION
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 90% of Animal Charity Evaluators’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 19% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 1% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +37% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2025, 18 since wound down; 8 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, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $519k 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
- THTHE HUMANE LEAGUE9× · 2017–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +213%
- TGTHE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC8× · 2017–2025 · $1.8M · revenue +432%
- WAWILD ANIMAL INITIATIVE INC7× · 2019–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +247%
Funded once
- HAHUMANE AMERICA ANIMAL FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $63k · revenue +100%
- MIMeridian Institutegraduatedone grant, 2020 · $60k · revenue +176%
- SMSENTIENT MEDIAgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $60k · revenue +235%
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.
HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (HSI), works around the globe to promote the human-animal bond, rescue and protect dogs and cats, improve farm animal welfare, protect wildlife, promote animal-free…
Growing respect and acceptance for veganism through our dedicated work of rescue and creative care, impactful vegan food programs, vibrant education, and consistent advocacy; all strengthened by our engagement with a rising global network…
Animal and Vegan Advocacy International, Inc. is dedicated to creating a world in which animals are removed from the food system and other human uses. It furthers this mission by convening advocates through an international conference…
A Greener World empowers sustainable solutions in agriculture, promoting and supporting real-life farming models to the public and offering farmers and ranchers practical guidance, resources and support on achieving truly sustainable…
To prevent cruelty to animals, we promote enacting and enforcing good public policies. enacting good laws depends upon electing good lawmakers, and we remind voters which candidates care about and support animal issues.
Every farmer and rancher participating in the Certified Humane program had to modify their operations to meet the Animal Care Standards and be certified. Schedule O
Exposing and eliminating animal cruelty.
Pax fauna exists to design a more effective social movement for animal freedom in the u.s., using original research as well as careful study of social movement literature and the recent history of the animal movement, in order to reverse…
There are many pathways for improving the lives of animals, but encouraging corporations to embed animal protection values into their production practices, supply chains, marketing efforts and research and development activities may be the…
The Animal Defense Partnership protects animals by providing free legal services to nonprofits that advocate for animals and plant-based diet change. We believe that all animal protection organizations should have access to strong legal…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Animal Outlook Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lewis & Clark College. 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 11 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 18% of your grantees by number, and just 9% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
67 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. 67 of the 83 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 THE HUMANE LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds THE GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds WILD ANIMAL INITIATIVE INC ↗
- Who funds FAUNALYTICS ↗
- Who funds Animal Equality ↗
- Who funds Compassion in World Farming Inc ↗
- Who funds NEW HARVEST INC ↗
- Who funds New Roots Institute ↗
- Who funds DHARMA VOICES FOR ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds FISH WELFARE INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds MERCY FOR ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds LEGAL IMPACT FOR CHICKENS ↗
- Who funds MATERIAL INNOVATION INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds A Well-Fed World ↗
- Who funds AQUATIC LIFE INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds Encompass Inc ↗
- Who funds Karuna Foundation ↗
- Who funds A JUST WORLD ↗
- Who funds Food Empowerment Project ↗
- Who funds PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds LEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Rethink Priorities ↗
- Who funds ACTASIA INC ↗
- Who funds HUMANE AMERICA ANIMAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds VEGAN OUTREACH INC ↗
- Who funds Meridian Institute ↗
- Who funds RETHINK YOUR FOOD INC ↗
- Who funds SENTIENT MEDIA ↗
- Who funds Nonhuman Rights Project Inc ↗
- Who funds PROVEG INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
- Who funds BALANCED INC ↗
- Who funds PRO-ANIMAL FUTURE ↗
- Who funds BETTER EATING INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL ADVOCACY AFRICA ↗
- Who funds SEED STRATEGIES FOR ETHICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT 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 Quinn Foundation · Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Humane America Animal Foundation · Vegfund Inc · Tipping Point Private Foundation · A Well-Fed World · Rsf Social Finance Inc · The Greenbaum Foundation · Karuna Foundation · Aceso Foundation Inc · Good Ventures Foundation · Kh Dominion Foundation 5507-21-40
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 Animal Charity Evaluators 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Lewis & Clark College — 2% of income from government
- Anthropocene Alliance — 0% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Animal Charity Evaluators?
Find your warmest path to Animal Charity Evaluators 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.