Skip to content
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc

Protection of animal rights

$7.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$847k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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$21M
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $1,167,236, the rows itemized in this filing. The $7,498,305 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $6,331,069 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $72k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $236k
  • $250k+1 grant · $847k
$11,236
Median grant
7
States reached
$82M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTECTION$846,900
SAVE THE CHIMPS$185,600
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER$50,000
TURPENTINE CREEK WILDLIFE REFUGE$30,000
PERFORMING ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY$11,236
CHIMPANZEE SANCTUARY NORTHWEST$10,500
NORTHWEST ANIMAL RIGHTS NETWORK$10,500
END ANIMAL CRUELTY$10,000
CHESAPEAKE HUMANE SOCIETY$7,000
ANIMAL HERO KIDS$5,500
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 18%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%KEEPERS OF THE WILD: $15k → 17%FRIENDS OF DXE: $8k → 10%NEW WAVE FOODS INC: $10k → 10%PERFORMING ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY: $11k → 12%WILDLIFE RESCUE & REHABILITATION: $20k → 7%OKLAHOMA PRIMATE SANCTUARY: $20k → 10%TURPENTINE CREEK WILDLIFE REFUGE: $30k → 16%THE FUND FOR ANIMALS: $65k → 14%ANIMAL HERO KIDS: $6k → 11%OUT TO PASTURE ANIMAL SANCTUARY: $7k → 8%END ANIMAL CRUELTY: $10k → 12%WILDLIFE SOS: $130k → 8%THE WILD ANIMAL SACTUARY: $70k → 9%PEACEABLE PRIMATE SANCTUARY INC: $30k → 14%JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS: $58k → 9%FERAL CAT SPRAY NEUTER PROJECT: $60k → 9%CHIMPANZEE SANCTUARY NORTHWEST: $11k → 11%WHATCOM HUMANE SOCIETY: $65k → 12%YAKIMA HUMANE SOCIETY: $165k → 17%CHESAPEAKE HUMANE SOCIETY: $7k → 9%VIRGINIA BEACH SPCA: $9k → 10%FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTEC: $14.8M → 19%CHIMP HAVEN: $8k → 22%INSTITUTE FOR IN VITRO SCIENCES: $100k → 8%TURPENTINE CREEK WILDLIFE REFUGE: $6k → 16%HUMANE RESCUE ALLIANCE: $39k → 14%THE WILD ANIMAL SACTUARY: $56k → 9%PEACEABLE PRIMATE SANCTUARY: $8k → 14%JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS: $56k → 9%YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: $75k → 17%FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTEC: $3.0M → 19%INSTITUTE FOR IN VITRO SCIENCES: $13k → 8%THE WILD ANIMAL SACTUARY: $40k → 9%JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS: $13k → 9%FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTECTION: $847k → 19%THE WILD ANIMAL SACTUARY: $10k → 9%ANIMAL RIGHTS INITIATIVE: $40k → 9%FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTEC: $50k → 19%NORTHWEST ANIMAL RIGHTS NETWORK: $20k → 9%FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTECTION: $20k → 19%ANIMAL RIGHTS INITIATIVE: $20k → 9%NORTHWEST ANIMAL RIGHTS NETWORK: $11k → 9%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
OR
IN
CA
UT
CO
VA
MD
AZ
AR
TN
DC
OK
LA
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $6.3M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

South Asia$3.7M · 59% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: ANIMAL PROTECTION

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$1.3M · 21% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: ANIMAL PROTECTION

East Asia and the Pacific$1.2M · 20% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: ANIMAL PROTECTION

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$20M · 11 repeat orgs$799k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +78% since the first grant, against +28% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
16

Total granted

$20M
$704k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+78%
+28%

Still filing today

91%
88%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $94k 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
AnimalsEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • FT
    FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTECTION
    5× · 2017–2025 · $19M · revenue +5% · 50% of their budget
  • TW
    THE WILD ANIMAL SANCTUARY
    4× · 2017–2021 · $176k · revenue +124%
  • PA
    Progressive Animal Welfare Society aka PAWS
    7× · 2017–2024 · $173k · revenue +141%

Funded once

  • YH
    YAKIMA HUMANE SOCIETYgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $165k · revenue +116%
  • WS
    WILDLIFE SOSgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $130k · revenue +120%
  • YC
    YAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
    one grant, 2023 · $75k
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
Forever Wild Wildlife Rescue
Animals
3
Wild Souls Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation
Animals
4
Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary Inc

We seek to end animal agriculture by rescuing farmed animals, giving them lifelong care and sanctuary, and educating about the harms of animal farming.

Animals
5
World Vets

To improve the health & well-being of animals through veterinary aid, response, training, research & local capacity building worldwide. We provide services to companion animals, horses, street dogs, livestock and marine animals including…

Animals
6
Pom and the Hound Animal Refuge

Animal Welfare

—
7
Partners for Animal Welfare Society

Animal shelter for the protection and care of abused and neglected animals.

Animals
8
Animal Rescue of the Rockies

Animal Care and Adoption - ARR's mission is to save the lives of homeless and abandoned dogs and cats. Our goal is reaching a no-kill society in the United States.

Animals
9
Animal Care Sanctuary

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…

Animals
10
Paws Claws Exotics

A sanctuary for unfortunate animals

—
11
International Exotic Animal Sanctuary

Care for abused, abandoned and illegally obtained large cats and bears.

Animals
12
Catskill Animal Sanctuary Inc

Catskill animal sanctuary rescues farmed animals, ignites social change to end their exploitation, and champions vegan living.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Foundation to Support Animal Protection; the most unlike its peers is Rush University Medical Center. 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

31 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. 31 of the 33 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
31/31
Grantees still filing
22/31
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTECTION: $18,750,536 · AnimalsFOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTECTIONSAVE THE CHIMPS INC: $780,600 · Animals+19 more: $991,396 · AnimalsJUSTICE FOR ANIMALS: $127,133 · OtherYAKIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: $75,360 · OtherThe Fund for Animals Inc: $65,000 · OtherANIMAL RIGHTS INITIATIVE: $60,000 · Other+4 more: $33,500 · OtherINSTITUTE FOR IN VITRO SCIENCES INC: $112,800 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF DENVER: $50,000 · EducationSOCIAL COMPASSION: $91,000 · EnvironmentTURPENTINE CREEK FOUNDATION INC: $36,000 · Environment
Animals$20,522,532Other$360,993Education$162,800Environment$127,000

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 budgetFOUNDATION TO SUPPORT ANIMAL PROTECTION: $18,750,536 over 5y, 50% of budgetSAVE THE CHIMPS INC: $780,600 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetTHE WILD ANIMAL SANCTUARY: $176,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetProgressive Animal Welfare Society aka PAWS: $172,655 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetYAKIMA HUMANE SOCIETY: $165,429 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetWILDLIFE SOS: $130,000 over 1y, 6.7% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR IN VITRO SCIENCES INC: $112,800 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetSOCIAL COMPASSION: $91,000 over 3y, 17% of budgetWHATCOM HUMANE SOCIETY: $65,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetThe Fund for Animals Inc: $65,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetFeral Cat SpayNeuter Project: $60,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF DENVER: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWASHINGTON HUMANE SOCIETY: $38,595 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPeaceable Primate Sanctuary: $37,500 over 2y, 12% of budgetTURPENTINE CREEK FOUNDATION INC: $36,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetNorthwest Animal Rights Network: $30,500 over 2y, 21% of budgetWILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetOklahoma Primate Sanctuary Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetKeepers of the Wild: $15,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetPERFORMING ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY: $11,236 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetEnd Animal Cruelty: $10,000 over 1y, 8.7% of budgetVIRGINIA BEACH SPCA: $8,981 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCHIMP HAVEN INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGLOBAL SANCTUARY FOR ELEPHANTS: $8,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetFriends of DxE: $8,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetOUT TO PASTURE ANIMAL SANCTUARY: $7,000 over 1y, 6.2% 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.

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.

Humane World for Anim…Dj and T FoundationHead & Heart Foundati…The Summerlee Foundat…Give Lively Foundatio…Mightycause Charitabl…The American Anti-Viv…A Kinder World Founda…Seattle FoundationEdwards Lifesciences …The American Society …The Duffield Family F…
Humane World for Animals IncDC25.1× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Humane World for Animals Inc · Dj and T Foundation · Head & Heart Foundation Tr 12319 · The Summerlee Foundation · Give Lively Foundation Inc · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · The American Anti-Vivisection Society · A Kinder World Foundation · Seattle Foundation · Edwards Lifesciences Foundation · The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals · The Duffield Family Foundation Dba Maddie's Fund

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 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Institute for in Vitro Sciences Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc?

Find your warmest path to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 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.

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 33 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 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 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home