· Public charity
Animal Legal Defense Fund Inc
The animal legal defense fund's mission is to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system.
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 6 grants below total $472,856 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $668,105 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $195,249 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–50k2 grants · $34k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $439k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| STATE OF WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL | $150,000 |
| ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS | $130,000 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE FAMILY COURT JUDGES | $100,000 |
| HUMANE SOCIETY OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON | $59,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT | $20,000 |
| VIRGINIA ANIMAL FIGHTING TASK FORCE | $13,856 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 94% of your 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.
12 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 8 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, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $73k 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
LEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE6× · 2017–2023 · $1.8M · revenue +35%- NCNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE & FAMILY COURT JUDGES4× · 2021–2025 · $415k · revenue +35%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF DENVER2× · 2021–2022 · $110k · revenue +12%
Funded once
- TGThe George Washington Universityone grant, 2023 · $1.1M · revenue +13%
- WSWASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERALone grant, 2022 · $150k
- VOVIRGINIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERALone grant, 2021 · $120k
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.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit's primary mission is to prevent cruelty to animals.
At Environmental and Animal Defense, our mission is to provide Colorado with access to affordable legal services for environmental and animal issues, in addition to protecting wildlife and their habitats through enforcement of the law. No…
Animal Partisan, Inc. is organized for the purposes of conducting legal advocacy on behalf of animals subjected to cruelty and exploitation.
A champion for animals since 1967, PAWS is a nationally recognized leader - rehabilitating injured and orphaned wildlife, sheltering and adopting homeless cats and dogs, and educating people to make a better world for animals and people.
The washington humane society protects animals, supports families, and advocates for positive change to create a world where all animals can thrive. we enrich the humanity of our communities by promoting compassion and encouraging people…
Animal shelter for the protection and care of abused and neglected animals.
Animal care sanctuary's lifesaving mission as a no kill organization envisions a community that promotes turning compassion into action for companion animals by: 1.) adopting healthy pet companions into loving homes. 2.) promoting the…
The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) is the only civil rights organization in The United States dedicated solely to securing fundamental rights for nonhuman animals and the leading force in building a national and global nonhuman rights…
Animal outlook is a national animal protection organization working to end the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies, including investigations, legal advocacy, corporate and food system reform, and vegan outreach.
Legal defense for animals
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Whidbey Animals Improvement Foundation 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.
20 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. 20 of the 37 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 LEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds The George Washington University ↗
- Who funds ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE & FAMILY COURT JUDGES ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Born Free USA united with API ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF DENVER ↗
- Who funds VANCOUVER HUMANE SOCIETY AND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds BARK NATION ↗
- Who funds Animal Rescue Corps Inc ↗
- Who funds HOOVED ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Earth Island Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force ↗
- Who funds Godspeed Horse Hostel Inc ↗
- Who funds Prevent Cruelty California a Humane Society Committee ↗
- Who funds SOUND EQUINE OPTIONS ↗
- Who funds CENTER VALLEY ANIMAL RESCUE ↗
- Who funds WHIDBEY ANIMALS IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE WILD ANIMAL SANCTUARY ↗
- Who funds Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ↗
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: Humane World for Animals Inc · Petsmart Charities Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Animal Legal Defense Fund Inc 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.
- Lewis & Clark College — 2% 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.