Skip to content
Foundation Dossiers

Texas · Public charity

Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals

The exclusive purpose for which the foundation is organized and shall be operated is to further the prevention of cruelty to animals by providing benefits and support to animal protection organziations.

$24M
Granted FY2022
6
Grants FY2022
6
Organizations funded FY2022
0%
First-time grantees FY2022
Read the full brief
Median grant, FY2022
$3,952,418
Largest grant, FY2022
$3,952,418
Organizations funded a year
6 to 6
FY2020 to FY2022
States reached, FY2022
3

How open it is to new grantees

In FY2022, 0% of the organizations Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals funded were first-time grantees, receiving 0% of its grant dollars.

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22
RenewedFirst-time
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.
The numbers by year
Fiscal yearOrganizations fundedTo those organizationsFirst-time grantees
FY20226$24M0%
FY20216$4.1M0%
FY20206$4.4Mn/a
100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2022.

Animals$32M

Top grantees

Largest recipients by total granted, FY2020 to FY2022, and the share of each one’s budget the grants supplied at peak.

GranteeTotal grantedYearsShare of their budget
Houston Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals$5,358,385314%
Houston Humane Society$5,358,385330%
Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Inc$5,358,384364%
World Animal Protection$5,358,384330%
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc$5,358,38436%
The Wildlife Center of Texas Inc$5,358,384389%

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.

Jpmorgan Chase Founda…The Blackbaud Giving …American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Jpmorgan Chase FoundationNY11.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · 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.

Compare Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals with peer funders

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals?

Find your warmest path to Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals 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.

About Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals

How much does Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals give?
Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals reported 6 grants totaling $23,714,508 in its FY2022 IRS filing. It funded between 6 and 6 organizations a year over FY2020 to FY2022.
What does Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals fund?
By grant dollars over FY2020 to FY2022, its largest causes are Animals (100%).
Who are Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals's largest grantees?
By total granted over FY2020 to FY2022: Houston Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ($5.4M), Houston Humane Society ($5.4M), Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Inc ($5.4M).
Does Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals fund new organizations?
In FY2022, 0% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.
Which funders back the same organizations as Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals?
Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include Jpmorgan Chase Foundation, The Blackbaud Giving Fund, American Online Giving Foundation Inc.
Where is Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals based?
Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection of Animals is based in TX.

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 6 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2023) is on record and reports $11k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2022, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Ruby McKibben Foundation for the Protection 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