· Private foundation
Huff Animal Protection Trust
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $137k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CATSNIP ETC | $35,000 |
| THE MEOW MISSION | $30,000 |
| HUMANE SOCIETY OF ELKHART COUNTY | $30,000 |
| HUMANE SOCIETY OF ST JOSEPH COUNTY | $30,000 |
| FRANTZ L DANTZLER FRIENDS FOR LIFE | $12,000 |
| ANIMAL ACRES INC | $7,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 94% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
10 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- CECATSNIP ETC9× · 2017–2025 · $214k · revenue +290%
- HSHUMANE SOCIETY OF ST JOSEPH COUNTY8× · 2018–2025 · $200k · revenue +20%
- MMMEOW MISSION INCORPORATED9× · 2017–2025 · $182k · revenue +196%
Funded once
- HSHUMANE SOCIETY SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAone grant, 2018 · $8k
- SJST JOSEPH COUNTY SPAY NEUTERone grant, 2017 · $5k
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.
7 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. 7 of the 12 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
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.
Open a dossier: Network for Good · Amazonsmile Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Huff Animal Protection Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Huff Animal Protection Trust. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Play a game based on Huff Animal Protection’s filings →