Skip to content
Pets for the Elderly Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Pets for the Elderly Foundation

The foundation helps pay the fees to participating animal shelters throughout the united states for senior citizens (age 60 and over) who adopt a companion dog or cat from a participating shelter - including pre-adoption veterinary exams and spay/neuter, if part of the adoption fee.

$539k
Granted FY2025still arriving
36
Grants FY2025still arriving
27
States reached
$31k
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 2024.

Animals$2.0M
02FY2025 · 36 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 36 grants below total $481,481, the rows itemized in this filing. The $539,307 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $57,826 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 $10k13 grants · $107k
  • $10k–50k23 grants · $375k
$11,875
Median grant
27
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
IDAHO HUMANE SOCIETY$31,085
TOLEDO AREA HUMANE SOCIETY$23,790
HUMANE SOCIETY OF BOULDER VALLEY$21,550
THE ANIMAL FOUNDATION$20,450
OREGON HUMANE SOCIETY$20,040
MARIN HUMANE SOCIETY$20,000
FRIENDS OF CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG ANIMAL SERVICES INCORPORATED$19,418
HUMANE SOCIETY OF CATAWBA COUNTY$17,173
DONA ANA COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY$17,000
DANE COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY$16,163
ANTI-CRUELTY SOCIETY CHICAGO$16,132
SPCA ALBRECHT CENTER$15,964
SECOND CHANCE ANIMAL SERVICES$15,288
CATHERINE VIOLET HUBBARD FOUNDATION INC$15,000
EASY STREET ANIMAL SHELTER$14,901
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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–22, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Northeast Ohio SPCA: $8k → 12%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
ID
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IA
IN
OH
PA
CA
CO
NE
MO
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
NC
SC
LA
MS
AL
TX
FL
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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 43 repeat orgs$210k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +24% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

43 repeat relationships: 27 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

43
15

Total granted

$2.3M
$119k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+12%

Still filing today

98%
93%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $91k 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
AnimalsPhilanthropyHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • IH
    Idaho Humane Society Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $129k · revenue +67%
  • OREGON HUMANE SOCIETY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $127k · revenue +26%
  • YH
    YAVAPAI HUMANE SOCIETY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $123k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • PC
    Pet Cottage Incgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +163%
  • NH
    NEBRASKA HUMANE SOCIETY
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +19%
  • HS
    HUMANE SOCIETY OF SUMMIT COUNTY
    one grant, 2022 · $9k · revenue -36%
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
Humane Society of Southwest Missouri

The humane society of southwest missouri is one of the largest open admission, no kill shelters in southwest missouri. it is dedicated to helping sick, injured and abandoned dogs and cats find their forever homes. for over 60 years the…

Animals
2
Humane Society of Central Illinois

HSCIs mission is to find loving, forever homes for abused and unwanted pets.

Animals
3
Athens Area Humane Society of Clarke County and Spca Inc

Theathensareahumanesocietyrescuesandprotectscompanionanimalsby providing for their wellbeing, uniting them with loving homes,and advocating for a compassionate society.

Animals
4
Humane Society of Southern Arizona

To compassionately serve pets and the people who love them.

Animals
5
Humane Society of Union County Inc

The Humane Society of Union County exists to reduce the number of abused, abandoned, and neglected cats and dogs through rescue, rehabilitation, adoption, and spay and neuter.

Animals
6
Animal Humane Society

Animal Humane Society (AHS) established in 1878 and incorporated as a nonprofit charitable organization in 1891 works to engage the hearts, hands, and minds of the community to help animals. AHS's vision is to compassionately and…

Animals
7
Caloosa Humane Society Inc

The mission of Caloosa Humane Society is to serve, shelter, and protect the homeless pets in our care. We are dedicated to finding permanent and loving adoptive homes for our companion animals in need. Our no-kill facility provides low…

Education
8
Humane Society of Richland Wilkin Co

To improve the qulity of life for companion animals, to place homeless cats & dogs in suitable homes, & to provide programs to reduce the overpopulation and euthanasia of companion animals.

Animals
9
Paws and Claws Animal Shelter
Animals
10
Tama County Humane Society

To operate as an animal shelter by taking in stray or surrendered animals. We provide medical care and surgical care, including spaying and neutering of all animals if needed prior to adoption.

Animals
11
Humane Society of the North Bay

Our mission is to provide shelter and compassionate care to our community's animals in need, offer programs that improve thier lives and strengthen the lifelong committment between animals and people.

Animals
12
Safe Haven Inc
Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Humane Animal Partners; the most unlike its peers is Pet Cottage 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

65 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. 65 of the 67 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)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
65/65
Grantees still filing
45/65
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Idaho Humane Society Inc: $129,101 · AnimalsIdaho Humane Society IncOREGON HUMANE SOCIETY: $127,244 · AnimalsOREGON HUMANE SOCIETYYAVAPAI HUMANE SOCIETY: $123,365 · AnimalsYAVAPAI HUMANE SOCIETYGREENHILL HUMANE SOCIETY SPCA: $122,476 · AnimalsGREENHILL HUMANE SOCIETY SPCATHE ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $118,580 · AnimalsANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE OF SPRINGFIELD AND SANGAMON COUNTY: $113,726 · AnimalsTOLEDO HUMANE SOCIETY: $112,911 · AnimalsDONA ANA COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $83,482 · AnimalsThe Anti-Cruelty Society: $83,197 · Animals+48 more: $1,265,331 · Animals+48 moreBROOKHAVEN ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE: $62,800 · OtherCITY OF ST JOSEPH: $49,904 · OtherHUMANE SOCIETY OF COWLITZ COUNTY: $20,100 · OtherANIMAL SHELTER OF NORTHEAST NEBRASKA INC: $8,850 · OtherHUMANE SOCIETY OF OLDHAM COUNTY: $8,400 · OtherALEXANDRIA ZOOLOGICAL PARK: $7,750 · OtherPETCO LOVE: $36,688 · PhilanthropyCATHERINE VIOLET HUBBARD FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 · PhilanthropyNational Mill Dog Rescue: $22,100 · Recreation & SportsNORTHEAST OHIO SPCA INC: $8,150 · Human Services
Animals$2,279,413Other$157,804Philanthropy$51,688Recreation & Sports$22,100Human Services$8,150

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetIdaho Humane Society Inc: $129,101 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetOREGON HUMANE SOCIETY: $127,244 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetYAVAPAI HUMANE SOCIETY: $123,365 over 9y, 0.6% of budgetGREENHILL HUMANE SOCIETY SPCA: $122,476 over 9y, 0.6% of budgetTHE ANIMAL FOUNDATION: $118,580 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE OF SPRINGFIELD AND SANGAMON COUNTY: $113,726 over 8y, 0.8% of budgetTOLEDO HUMANE SOCIETY: $112,911 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetDONA ANA COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $83,482 over 6y, 5.9% of budgetThe Anti-Cruelty Society: $83,197 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetPAWS CHICAGO: $70,550 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE OF IOWA INC: $69,848 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF CATAWBA COUNTY DBA THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF CATAWBA CO: $68,926 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetKANSAS HUMANE SOCIETY OF WICHITA KANSAS: $68,528 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetKALAMAZOO COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $65,545 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetBROOKHAVEN ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE: $62,800 over 7y, 4.3% of budgetSECOND CHANCE ANIMAL SERVICES INC: $62,650 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetBANNOCK HUMANE SOCIETY: $54,135 over 6y, 11% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF SONOMA COUNTY: $50,382 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetAnimal Friends Inc: $49,950 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetMARIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $47,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetDELAWARE HUMANE ASSOCIATION: $45,987 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetTHE HUMANE SOCIETY OF ROCHESTER & MONROE COUNTY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO: $41,100 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetDANE COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $40,849 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetINGHAM COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $39,400 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetPETCO LOVE: $36,688 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetHOUSTON SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $32,648 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER OF ST JOSEPH INC: $32,335 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetTHE HUMANE SOCIETY OF BOULDER VALLEY INC: $31,925 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetEASY STREET ANIMAL SHELTER: $30,701 over 3y, 8.4% of budgetTHE HUMANE SOCIETY OF BALTIMORE COUNTY INC: $29,350 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetHUMANE ANIMAL PARTNERS: $23,419 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetNational Mill Dog Rescue: $22,100 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSPCA ALBRECHT CENTER FOR ANIMAL WELFARE: $21,964 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF COWLITZ COUNTY: $20,100 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG ANIMAL SERVICES INCORPORATED: $19,418 over 1y, 12% of budgetSANTA CRUZ HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $18,975 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetLOS ANGELES SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $17,850 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWICHITA ANIMAL ACTION LEAGUE: $17,700 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetDUBUQUE REGIONAL HUMANE SOCIETY: $17,605 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetTNR NORTH PLATTE: $16,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetPASADENA HUMANE: $14,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGEAUGA COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $12,185 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF INDIANAPOLIS: $11,230 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetPet Cottage Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetNEBRASKA HUMANE SOCIETY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTOUCHED BY AN ANIMAL: $10,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF BROWARD COUNTY INC: $9,600 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF SUMMIT COUNTY: $9,035 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

The Duffield Family F…Petsmart Charities IncPetco LoveThe American Society …Best Friends Animal S…Greater Good CharitiesBISSELL Pet FoundationPedigree FoundationHumane World for Anim…The Grey Muzzle Organ…Banfield FoundationSimple Generosity Fou…
The Duffield Family Foundation Dba Maddie's FundCA45.4× affinity21 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Duffield Family Foundation Dba Maddie's Fund · Petsmart Charities Inc · Petco Love · The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals · Best Friends Animal Society · Greater Good Charities · BISSELL Pet Foundation · Pedigree Foundation · Humane World for Animals Inc · The Grey Muzzle Organization · Banfield Foundation · Simple Generosity 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 Pets for the Elderly Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pets for the Elderly Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 14%
  • Humane Animal Partners: 14% of income from government
  • Greenhill Humane Society Spca: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
11report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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 Pets for the Elderly Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Pets for the Elderly Foundation 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 67 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 Pets for the Elderly’s 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