Skip to content

· Public charity

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for Monterey County

The SPCA Monterey County's Mission is assuring compassionate treatment of all animals through rescue, rehabilitation, protection and education.

$43k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Animals$216k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $42,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $43,446 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,446 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $30k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$84M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
San Antonio Commuity$10,000
Our Neighborhood Pet Project$10,000
South County Animal Rescue$10,000
Community Cat Allies$6,000
Best Life TNR & Rescue$6,000
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 (FY22–23, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Animal Friends Rescue Project: $13k → 12%Animal Friends Rescue Project: $12k → 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.
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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$216k · 7 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
0

Total granted

$216k
$0

Still filing today

86%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’19’20’22’23’24
AnimalsHuman ServicesOther
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

  • SN
    SPAY NEUTER IMPERATIVE PROJECT CALIFORNIA
    3× · 2019–2022 · $101k · revenue ×14
  • AF
    Animal Friends Rescue Project
    2× · 2022–2023 · $25k · revenue +5%
  • SA
    Spay-Neuter Assistance Program Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $16k · revenue +19%

Funded once

    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
    04the grantee network

    6 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. 6 of the 7 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)
    3
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    6/6
    Grantees still filing
    5/6
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    SPAY NEUTER IMPERATIVE PROJECT CALIFORNIA: $101,000 · AnimalsSPAY NEUTER IMPERATIVE PROJECT CALIFORNIASouth Monterey County Animal Rescue: $30,000 · AnimalsSouth Monterey County Animal RescueOur Neighborhood Pet Project: $20,000 · AnimalsOur Neighborhood Pet ProjectSpay-Neuter Assistance Program Inc: $16,000 · AnimalsSpay-Neuter Assistance Program IncBEST LIFE TNR & RESCUE INC: $12,000 · AnimalsBEST LIFE TNR & RESCUE INCAnimal Friends Rescue Project: $25,000 · Human ServicesAnimal Friend…COMMUNITY CAT ALLIES: $12,000 · Other
    Animals$179,000Human Services$25,000Other$12,000

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

    25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSPAY NEUTER IMPERATIVE PROJECT CALIFORNIA: $101,000 over 3y, 14% of budgetSouth Monterey County Animal Rescue: $30,000 over 3y, 8.7% of budgetAnimal Friends Rescue Project: $25,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetOur Neighborhood Pet Project: $20,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetSpay-Neuter Assistance Program Inc: $16,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBEST LIFE TNR & RESCUE INC: $12,000 over 2y, 5.4% 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.

    Paypal Charitable Giving FundDC9.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Paypal Charitable Giving 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.

    How much its grantees rely on government

    Each dot is one organization Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for Monterey County funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for Monterey County. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
      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.

      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 7 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for Monterey County’s filings →

      More from the funding graph