Skip to content
World Pet Association Inc at a glance

· Public charity

World Pet Association Inc

Pet Industry Trade Association

$1.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
9
States reached
$830k
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$10MEnvironment$107kEducation$60k
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $1,724,764, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,774,764 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $50,000 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

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $85k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $550k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
$100,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$27M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Pet Advocacy Network$829,514
NAIA Trust$260,250
Pet Care Trust$150,000
USARK$100,000
Human Animal Bond Research$100,000
Berman and Consumer Freedom$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
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 29% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Project Piaba: $25k → 7%Center for Consumer Freedom: $100k → 14%USARK Floria Inc: $40k → 16%NAIA Trust: $260k → 12%Pet Leadership Council: $142k → 9%USARK: $100k → 12%FetchFind LLC: $60k → 14%Berman and Consumer Freedom: $100k → 7%Pet Ind Joint Adv Council: $837k → 9%Pet Care Trust: $210k → 7%Piaba Project: $50k → 7%Center for Consumer Freedom: $100k → 14%NAIA Trust: $150k → 12%Pet Leadership Council: $107k → 9%USARK: $50k → 12%Berman and Consumer Freedom: $50k → 7%Pet Advocacy Network: $830k → 9%Pet Care Trust: $200k → 7%Center for Consumer Freedom: $100k → 14%NAIA Trust: $150k → 12%Pet Ind Joint Adv Council: $796k → 9%Pet Care Trust: $150k → 7%Center for Consumer Freedom: $50k → 14%National Animal INtrst Alianc: $150k → 12%Pet Ind Joint Adv Council: $787k → 9%Pet Care Trust: $150k → 7%Center for Consumer Freedom: $50k → 14%NAIA Trust: $150k → 12%Pet Advocacy Network: $719k → 9%Pet Care Trust: $150k → 7%Center for Consumer Freedom: $50k → 14%NAIA Trust: $150k → 12%Pet Ind Joint Adv Council: $697k → 9%Pet Care Trust: $150k → 7%Center for Consumer Freedom: $50k → 14%National Animal INtrst Alianc: $138k → 12%Pet Ind Joint Adv Council: $270k → 9%Pet Care Trust: $143k → 7%National Animal INtrst Alianc: $105k → 12%Pet Ind Joint Adv Council: $252k → 9%Pet Care Trust: $118k → 7%NAIA Trust: $58k → 12%NAIA Trust: $50k → 12%Human Animal Bond Research: $100k → 14%Human Animal Bond Research: $100k → 14%Human Animal Bond Research: $100k → 14%Human Animal Bond Research: $100k → 14%Human Animal Bond Research: $100k → 14%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

IL
MA
OR
PA
CT
CO
VA
MD
NC
DC
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10M · 13 repeat orgs$170k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
2

Total granted

$10M
$85k

Still filing today

69%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $85k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
AnimalsEnvironmentPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • PI
    PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL
    8× · 2017–2024 · $5.2M · revenue +17% · 35% of their budget
  • TP
    THE PET CARE TRUST
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +121% · 37% of their budget
  • NT
    NAIA TRUST
    7× · 2017–2024 · $968k · revenue +346% · 97% of their budget

Funded once

  • FL
    FetchFind LLC
    one grant, 2022 · $60k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $25k
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
The Pet Nutrition Alliance Ltd
Animals
3
Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc
Philanthropy
4
The Animal Rescue League
Animals
5
Pet Rescue Miami Inc
Animals
6
Alliance for Arizona Animal Protection

Prevention of animal cruelty and intervention on behalf of animals being abused.

Animals
7
Florida Animal Protection Foundation
Animals
8
Animal Wellness Institute

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.

Animals
9
Ripple Effect Animal Project
Animals
10
Realtors to the Rescue

Animal Rescue

—
11
Happy Pet Owners Nonprofit Organization
—
12
Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit dba Caru Spca

The Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit's primary mission is to prevent cruelty to animals.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council; 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.
04the grantee network

13 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. 13 of the 18 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.

6
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/13
Grantees still filing
6/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL: $5,212,629 · OtherPET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCILTHE CENTER FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION: $500,000 · OtherTHE CENTER FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONTRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $395,500 · OtherTRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITYPet Leadership Council: $263,414 · Other+6 more: $455,000 · Other+6 moreTHE PET CARE TRUST: $1,271,126 · AnimalsTHE PET CARE TRUSTNAIA TRUST: $967,754 · AnimalsNAIA TRUSTHUMAN ANIMAL BOND RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $550,000 · AnimalsHUMAN ANIMAL BOND RESEARCH FOUN…+1 more: $25,000 · AnimalsNATIONAL ANIMAL INTEREST ALLIANCE: $392,500 · PhilanthropyBIO-AMAZONIA CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $75,000 · EnvironmentTHE CORAL RESTORATION FOUNDATION INC: $32,114 · EnvironmentUSARK FLORIDA INC: $40,000 · Community Improvement
Other$6,826,543Animals$2,813,880Philanthropy$392,500Environment$107,114Community Improvement$40,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL: $5,212,629 over 8y, 35% of budgetTHE PET CARE TRUST: $1,271,126 over 8y, 37% of budgetNAIA TRUST: $967,754 over 7y, 97% of budgetHUMAN ANIMAL BOND RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $550,000 over 7y, 6.3% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION: $500,000 over 7y, 26% of budgetNATIONAL ANIMAL INTEREST ALLIANCE: $392,500 over 3y, 31% of budgetPet Leadership Council: $263,414 over 3y, 14% of budgetUNITED STATES ASSOCIATION OF REPTILE KEEPERS INC: $150,000 over 2y, 9.0% of budgetBIO-AMAZONIA CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $75,000 over 2y, 33% of budgetBIRD ENJOYMENT & ADVANTAGE KOALITION: $50,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetUSARK FLORIDA INC: $40,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetTHE CORAL RESTORATION FOUNDATION INC: $32,114 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetPET SUSTAINABILITY COALITION: $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% 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.

  • 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 ↗

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.

American Pet Products…Pet Industry Distribu…Pet Food Institute
American Pet Products Association IncCT15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Pet Products Association Inc · Pet Industry Distributors Association · Pet Food Institute

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 World Pet Association Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from World Pet Association Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 16%
  • The Coral Restoration Foundation Inc: 16% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
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 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.

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 18 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.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on World Pet Association’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