· Public charity
World Pet Association Inc
Pet Industry Trade Association
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.
The 11 grants below total $1,724,764 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,774,764 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $50,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k3 grants · $85k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $550k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Pet Advocacy Network | $829,514 |
| NAIA Trust | $260,250 |
| Pet Care Trust | $150,000 |
| Berman and Consumer Freedom | $100,000 |
| USARK | $100,000 |
| Human Animal Bond Research | $100,000 |
| Piaba Project | $50,000 |
| Center for Consumer Freedom | $50,000 |
| USARK Floria Inc | $40,000 |
| Pet Sustainability Coalition | $25,000 |
| World Alliance of Grooming | $20,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 29% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
13 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $85k 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
- PIPET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL8× · 2017–2024 · $5.2M · revenue +17% · 35% of their budget
- TPTHE PET CARE TRUST8× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +121% · 37% of their budget
- NTNAIA TRUST7× · 2017–2024 · $968k · revenue +346% · 97% of their budget
Funded once
- FLFetchFind LLCone grant, 2022 · $60k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $25k
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.
Prevention of animal cruelty and intervention on behalf of animals being abused.
Research and exploration of the non-human animals living amongst human cultures. We focus on conducting innovative research, education and partnerships with animal welfare organizations.
Animal Rescue
The Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit's primary mission is to prevent cruelty to animals.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and the most unlike its peers is The Pet Care Trust. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 18 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
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 PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds THE PET CARE TRUST ↗
- Who funds NAIA TRUST ↗
- Who funds HUMAN ANIMAL BOND RESEARCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ANIMAL INTEREST ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Pet Leadership Council ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION OF REPTILE KEEPERS INC ↗
- Who funds BIO-AMAZONIA CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds BIRD ENJOYMENT & ADVANTAGE KOALITION ↗
- Who funds USARK FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds THE CORAL RESTORATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PET SUSTAINABILITY COALITION ↗
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: American Pet Products Association Inc · Pet Industry Distributors Association · Pet Food Institute
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 World Pet Association Inc 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.
- The Coral Restoration Foundation Inc — 16% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to World Pet Association Inc?
Find your warmest path to World Pet Association 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.