The organizers of P4A say that charities with the most votes get the money. In last years it was ~30 charities: https://fightworldsuck.org/#Grants

Thank you for sharing these insights!!

I would like to add another possible positive indirect effect of banning / reducing the sale of live animals. I could imagine that seeing live animals suffering and considering this situation as "normal" will have a negative impact on general attitudes towards animals. Especially children could adopt this view that it's "normal" to buy live animals and kill them - and it's perhaps more unlikely that they question this practice later on.

However, I agree that it is difficult to continue with a campaign if the short-term effect is unclear / (potentially) negative and you have to argue against the argument that your campaign is causing harm. If there are better alternatives, it seems a good choice to me.

Thanks for sharing and for your incredibly important work!

You should have a look at https://www.techtotherescue.org/ 

Just did it. Thanks for the idea!

Can you give an overview how much funding went into the different world regions, in the payout reports? For example XX% to organizations in North America, XX% in Africa,... I would find it interesting (especially if you want to focus on neglected regions)!