Skip to content

· Private foundation

Harold B Larson Charitable Trust 005178a

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.

$386k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$55k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Animals$2.4MEnvironment$425kHealth$170k
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k12 grants · $331k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $55k
$27,576
Median grant
7
States reached
$6.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Humane World for Animals Inc$55,151
In Defense of Animals$27,576
PCRM Inc$27,576
The Humane Farming Association$27,576
Animal Welfare Institute$27,576
Nevada Humane Society$27,576
Farm Animal Reform Movement$27,576
United Poultry Concerns Inc$27,576
Friends of Animals$27,576
Greenpeace Fund Inc$27,576
Animal People$27,576
Animal Legal Defense Fund$27,576
Natural Resources Defense Council$27,576
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 76% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%In Defense of Animals: $28k → 8%Animal Legal Defense Fund: $28k → 9%Natural Resources Defense Council: $28k → 17%Humane World for Animals Inc: $55k → 14%Friends of Animals: $28k → 9%Animal People: $28k → 7%United Poultry Concerns Inc: $28k → 19%Nevada Humane Society: $28k → 10%The Fund for Animals: $22k → 8%In Defense of Animals: $28k → 8%Animal Legal Defense Fund: $28k → 9%Natural Resources Defense Council: $28k → 17%The Humane Society of the United States: $51k → 14%Friends of Animals: $28k → 9%Animal People: $28k → 7%United Poultry Concerns Inc: $28k → 19%Nevada Humane Society: $28k → 10%In Defense of Animals: $26k → 8%Animal Legal Defense Fund: $26k → 9%Natural Resources Defense Council: $26k → 17%The Fund for Animals: $28k → 14%Friends of Animals: $26k → 9%Animal People: $26k → 7%United Poultry Concerns Inc: $26k → 19%Nevada Humane Society: $26k → 10%In Defense of Animals: $25k → 8%Animal Legal Defense Fund: $25k → 9%Natural Resources Defense Council: $25k → 17%The Fund for Animals: $25k → 14%Friends of Animals: $25k → 9%Animal People: $25k → 7%United Poultry Concerns Inc: $25k → 19%Nevada Humane Society: $25k → 10%Farm Animal Reform Movement: $22k → 8%In Defense of Animals: $22k → 8%Animal Legal Defense Fund: $22k → 9%Animal Welfare Institute: $28k → 14%Animal Welfare Institute: $28k → 14%Animal Welfare Institute: $26k → 14%Animal Welfare Institute: $25k → 14%PCRM Inc: $28k → 14%PCRM Inc: $28k → 14%PCRM Inc: $26k → 14%PCRM Inc: $25k → 14%Greenpeace Fund Inc: $28k → 14%Greenpeace Fund Inc: $28k → 14%Greenpeace Fund Inc: $26k → 14%Greenpeace Fund Inc: $25k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
NY
NV
CT
CA
VA
MD
DC
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.0M · 15 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
0

Total granted

$3.0M
$0

Still filing today

87%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentArts & CulturePublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • FO
    FRIENDS OF ANIMALS INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $212k · revenue +30%
  • GREENPEACE FUND INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $212k · revenue +31%
  • AL
    ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $212k · revenue +55%

Funded once

    How this is measured

    Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

    04Its field

    Closest unfunded matches

    The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

    1
    Global Animal Partnership
    Animals
    2
    Humane World for Animals International

    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…

    Animals
    3
    Animal Wellness Action

    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.

    Human Services
    4
    Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit dba Caru Spca

    The Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit's primary mission is to prevent cruelty to animals.

    Human Services
    5
    Humane World Action Fund

    To pass animal protection laws, educate the public, and support humane candidates for office.

    Animals
    6
    Animal Outlook Inc

    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.

    Animals
    7
    Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc
    Philanthropy
    8
    The Animal Welfare Foundation
    —
    9
    Speak Out for Animals

    Animal and Wildlife legal framework

    Animals
    10
    Environmental and Animal Defense

    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…

    Crime & Legal
    11
    Lexus Project Inc

    Legal defense for animals

    Animals
    12
    Humane Farm Animal Care

    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

    Animals
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Humane Farming Association; the most unlike its peers is Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
    04the grantee network

    13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

    Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

    How this is measured

    Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 15 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

    Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    1
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    13/13
    Grantees still filing
    8/13
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    FRIENDS OF ANIMALS INC: $212,453 · AnimalsFRIENDS OF ANIMALS INCANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $212,453 · AnimalsANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INCHUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: $212,453 · AnimalsHUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATIONFARM ANIMAL REFORM MOVEMENT INC: $212,453 · AnimalsFARM ANIMAL REFORM MOVEMENT INCIN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS: $212,453 · AnimalsIN DEFENSE OF ANIMALSANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE: $212,453 · AnimalsANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTENEVADA HUMANE SOCIETY: $212,453 · AnimalsNEVADA HUMANE SOCIETYHumane World for Animals Inc: $106,560 · AnimalsHumane World for Animals IncPCRM Inc: $212,453 · OtherPCRM IncThe Fund for Animals Inc: $159,172 · OtherThe Fund for Animals…Humane Society Veterinary Medical Assoc: $159,172 · OtherHumane Society Veter…GREENPEACE FUND INC: $212,453 · EnvironmentGREENPEACE FUND …NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $212,453 · EnvironmentNATURAL RESOURCE…Animal People Inc: $212,453 · Arts & CultureUNITED POULTRY CONCERNS INC: $212,453 · Public Benefit
    Animals$1,593,731Other$530,797Environment$424,906Arts & Culture$212,453Public Benefit$212,453

    Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFRIENDS OF ANIMALS INC: $212,453 over 9y, 0.6% of budgetGREENPEACE FUND INC: $212,453 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetAnimal People Inc: $212,453 over 9y, 18% of budgetANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC: $212,453 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetHUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION: $212,453 over 9y, 0.6% of budgetFARM ANIMAL REFORM MOVEMENT INC: $212,453 over 9y, 4.7% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $212,453 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetIN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS: $212,453 over 9y, 0.9% of budgetANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE: $212,453 over 9y, 0.5% of budgetNEVADA HUMANE SOCIETY: $212,453 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetUNITED POULTRY CONCERNS INC: $212,453 over 9y, 7.6% of budgetThe Fund for Animals Inc: $159,172 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetHumane World for Animals Inc: $106,560 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
    Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

    A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

    • Who funds FRIENDS OF ANIMALS INC ↗
    • Who funds GREENPEACE FUND INC ↗
    • Who funds Animal People Inc ↗
    • Who funds ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC ↗
    • Who funds HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION ↗
    • Who funds FARM ANIMAL REFORM MOVEMENT INC ↗
    • Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
    • Who funds IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS ↗
    • Who funds ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE ↗
    • Who funds NEVADA HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
    • Who funds UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS INC ↗
    • Who funds The Fund for Animals Inc ↗
    • Who funds Humane World for Animals Inc ↗

    Co-funders

    Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

    PC Fund for Animals Charitable TrWY13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: PC Fund for Animals Charitable Tr · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

    How this is measured
    Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

    How much its grantees rely on government

    Each dot is one organization Harold B Larson Charitable Trust 005178a funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Harold B Larson Charitable Trust 005178a. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      1get no government money at all
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
      typical government reliance, FY20–25
      How this is measured
      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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

      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 15 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Harold B Larson Charitable Trust 005178a’s filings →

      More from the funding graph