· Private foundation
PC Fund for Animals Charitable Tr
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k87 grants · $250k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $136k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| OSCAR'S PLACE ADOPTION CENTER | $25,142 |
| CHARITIES AID FOUNDATION AMERICA | $20,002 |
| IRONWOOD PIG SANCTUARY | $15,583 |
| NON HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT | $12,710 |
| MERCY FOR ANIMALS | $12,000 |
| PAN AFRICAN SANCTUARY ALLIANCE | $10,300 |
| THE HUMANE LEAGUE | $10,220 |
| HAPI TRAILS HORSE ADOPTION | $10,204 |
| FARM SANCTUARY | $10,000 |
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND | $10,000 |
| ANIMAL OUTLOOK | $6,862 |
| COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING | $6,786 |
| SPECIES UNITE | $6,451 |
| FOUR PAWS INTL | $6,180 |
| THE TORTOISE CONSERVANCY INC | $6,100 |
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, $41k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +42% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
208 repeat relationships — 62 still active in FY2024, 146 since wound down; 30 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $102k 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
- TMTHE MARY C SCHANZ FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2024 · $103k · revenue +82%
- ALANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC8× · 2017–2024 · $63k · revenue +55%
- MFMERCY FOR ANIMALS INC6× · 2018–2024 · $53k · revenue +116%
Funded once
- HFHUMANE FARMINGone grant, 2021 · $10k
- CFCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF TETON VALLEY INCone grant, 2021 · $8k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $6k
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.
Animal Welfare
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.
To pass animal protection laws, educate the public, and support humane candidates for office.
Animal care and rescue
To rescue at risk k-9s from asia.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Defenders of Animal Rights Inc and the most unlike its peers is Red Bucket Equine Rescue. 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 25 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 2% 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.
172 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. 172 of the 377 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 MARY C SCHANZ FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds VETPAW INC ↗
- Who funds MERCY FOR ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds THE ELEPHANT SANCTUARY IN TENNESSEE ↗
- Who funds Asia Wild ↗
- Who funds Animal Welfare Association Inc ↗
- Who funds HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE HUMANE LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds FARM SANCTUARY INC ↗
- Who funds Nonhuman Rights Project Inc ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CHARITIES AID FOUNDATION AMERICA ↗
- Who funds Partnership With Native Americans ↗
- Who funds GREENPEACE INC ↗
- Who funds TETON RAPTOR CENTER ↗
- Who funds JANE GOODALL INSTITUTE FOR WILDLIFE RESEARCH EDUCATION AND CONSERVATION ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds FOOD ANIMAL CONCERNS TRUST (FACT INC) ↗
- Who funds Born Free USA united with API ↗
- Who funds UNITED ANIMAL NATIONS DBA REDROVER ↗
- Who funds THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ↗
- Who funds Compassion in World Farming Inc ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL ANIMAL RESCUE US INC ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL HELP NOW (formerly Animal Watch) ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE INC ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds FOUR PAWS INTERNATIONAL 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: Bradford Family Foundation · The Susan and Ford Schumann Foundation · The Gerald B Shreiber Foundation · Surendra and Karen Gupta Arc Foundation · Joyce a Ward Foundation · Seckinger Foundation Corporation · The Patricia Florence Miller Trust · Paula Knickerbocker Foundation Inc · John R Oltman Charitable Foundation · The J R Stein Family Foundation (F/K/A the Stein Family Fund) · Bernard Weinberg Foundation · Butchkie Foundation Inc
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 PC Fund for Animals Charitable Tr 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.
- Pan African Sanctuary Alliance Inc — 68% 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.