· Private foundation
Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
70% of Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Charities Aid Foundation America, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2022, the last year Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc named its own grantees at scale: 8 organizations, $24k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 66% of BROOKS INSTITUTE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS LAW AND POLICY INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HELP AFRICAN ANIMALS | $8,200 |
| THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES | $6,000 |
| MERCY FOR ANIMALS | $3,000 |
| RANCHO COMPASSION | $3,000 |
| FOOD EMPOWERMENT PROJECT | $1,500 |
| HUMAN ECOLOGY PROJECT | $1,500 |
| BALTIMORE ANIMAL RESCUE & CARE SHELTER | $1,000 |
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC | $200 |
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 US giving — 82% of grant dollars ($200k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 18% that went abroad ($44k) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 56% 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
Beyond the US — 18% of all-years giving ($44k)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 18% of Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc’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.
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 +82% since the first grant, against +67% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2022, 2 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call). Read against FY2022, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k 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
- ALANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC3× · 2021–2023 · $16k · revenue +34%
- HAHELP AFRICAN ANIMALS2× · 2022–2024 · $16k
- IBILLINOIS BAR ASSOCIATION2× · 2021–2023 · $6k
Funded once
- UOUNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTSone grant, 2019 · $59k
- CKCREATURE KINDone grant, 2019 · $25k
- EFExotic Feline Rescue Centergraduatedone grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue +33%
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…
To pass animal protection laws, educate the public, and support humane candidates for office.
World animal protection is a global organization working to end factory farming and wildlife exploitation. we expose cruel systems, promote animal-friendly alternatives, and influence policy change. for over 75 years, we've been rewriting…
The Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit's primary mission is to prevent cruelty to animals.
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.
Dedicated to ending animal abuse and exploitation through education, public outreach and investigations.
Supporting and assisting with rescue, sheltering, spay/neuter, and rehoming of cats and dogs in needy developing countries. Our current exclusive focus is on Egypt and the Egyptian Society for Mercy to Animals.
Legal defense for 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…
At Hope for China Dogs, we are committed to combating the cruel and inhumane practice of the dog meat trade in China. We believe that every dog deserves to live a life free from pain and suffering, and we are dedicated to rescuing and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mercy for Animals Inc and the most unlike its peers is Speak Out for Animals. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 23 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 CHARITIES AID FOUNDATION AMERICA ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Humane World for Animals Inc ↗
- Who funds SPEAK OUT FOR ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds Exotic Feline Rescue Center ↗
- Who funds RANCHO COMPASION ↗
- Who funds MERCY FOR ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds Nonhuman Rights Project Inc ↗
- Who funds Food Empowerment Project ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF DUPAGE COUNTY ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHAPPY & FRIENDS ↗
- Who funds BALTIMORE ANIMAL RESCUE AND CARE SHELTER BARCS ↗
- Who funds THE GENTLE BARN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NETWORK FOR GOOD ↗
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: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · 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 Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy 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.
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 Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc?
Find your warmest path to Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc 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.