who funds the nonprofits?

we went looking for ten. we found five.

Thirteen US mental-health nonprofits were checked. Five of them name a drug company among their funders [1][5][6][7][10]. That is the finding, and padding it to ten would have meant inventing precision we do not have.

The other eight break into three groups. Two publish donor lists with no drug companies in them, and for one of those — the Treatment Advocacy Center — the negative is genuinely verified [3][4]. Five publish something that is not a donor list: a logo wall, a list rendered by script that never reaches the page source, a policy without a current list, or one page of a tax return [11][12][13][14][15]. One publishes nothing we can reach at all [19].

Why the tax return cannot answer this question. A public charity's Form 990 Schedule B has donor names and addresses redacted in the public copy by law. The 990 gives a denominator and nothing else. It cannot tell you that a single dollar came from a drug company. Every named-donor fact on this page comes from the organisation choosing to publish it. Everything on this page that names a funder exists because an organisation decided to print it.

the sort order is the finding

Ranked by revenue, this list runs Child Mind Institute at $97.7 million, AFSP at $48.0 million, Autism Speaks at $36.3 million, and down through BBRF, JED, Mental Health America and Active Minds before it reaches anyone with a detailed disclosure [17].

The two organisations with the richest manufacturer disclosure rank eleventh and thirteenth by revenue. The three largest are the three we can say least about. Sorting this page by size would have filled it with organisations where the honest answer is “we do not know,” and dropped the two where the answer is fully documented.

So the page is sorted by disclosure quality instead. Sorted by disclosure quality, never by size. An organisation that publishes is legible; an organisation that publishes nothing looks cleaner only because it is opaque. Read the ladder below as a measure of transparency, not of virtue. An organisation near the bottom is not cleaner than one near the top. It is quieter.

the clearest case: a tardive dyskinesia programme, funded by a company that sells a tardive dyskinesia drug

The Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance convened a Peer Council on tardive dyskinesia — an involuntary movement disorder — and thanked Teva Pharmaceuticals for funding it [1]. Teva markets AUSTEDO, one of only two drugs the FDA has approved to treat tardive dyskinesia [18].

DBSA describes the initiative in its own annual report, and closes the section:

“DBSA gratefully acknowledges Teva Pharmaceuticals for its generous support of this initiative.”— Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, 2025 Annual Report, Tardive Dyskinesia and Mental Health Research & Clinical Trial Education Initiative [1]

And this belongs in the same breath, because DBSA printed it too. The participant testimony DBSA quotes in that same section is cautionary about medication, not promotional: “I did not know that one of the main causes of TD comes from the use of long-term medication.” A tardive dyskinesia awareness programme paid for by a company that sells a tardive dyskinesia drug is exactly the disclosed-but-notable fact this page exists to surface — and DBSA's own material tells readers that antipsychotics cause the condition. Publishing the funding without that sentence would misrepresent the source.

Two more funded programmes are named in the same report: a co-branded PTSD patient education campaign with Lundbeck, and Otsuka's sponsorship of a “Transforming the Definition of Wellness” initiative [1].

the control case, and it sits here on purpose

The Treatment Advocacy Center publishes constantly about antipsychotic medication and states that it accepts no pharmaceutical money at all [3][4]. Its research briefings include pieces on two newly approved antipsychotics, on barriers to long-acting injectable antipsychotics, and on new medications for schizophrenia. Its published policy is unambiguous:

“TAC is a wholly independent and non-partisan organization. We accept NO money from the pharmaceutical industry or other interest groups that could tarnish our reputation for independence in research, policy work, or advocacy.”— Treatment Advocacy Center, published history [3]

We verified that two independent ways. A named-entity scan of TAC's complete donor list, across all four donor pages, against a 40-name manufacturer list returned zero matches — the only apparent hits were substrings inside ordinary words, like “passage” and “compassionate” [4]. And TAC states the policy itself. Its founding funder is named openly: the Stanley Family Foundation, via Vada Stanley, at TAC's founding in 1998.

This is why the page has any credibility at all. Without an organisation like TAC directly beside DBSA, “this group discusses antipsychotics” and “this group takes drug money” would collapse into a single signal, and the page would become an insinuation machine. TAC proves the page is measuring funding, not punishing anyone for talking about medication. The two ship together or neither does.

Fairness in the other direction. TAC is a genuinely contested organisation. Assisted outpatient treatment and civil-commitment expansion are opposed by much of the psychiatric-survivor movement. The claim on this page is narrow and financial: TAC takes no industry money and says so. That is not an endorsement of its policy positions.

twelve of twelve

Every sponsor the Schizophrenia & Psychosis Action Alliance names is a drug manufacturer or biotech company. All twelve of them [5]:

And here is what we still cannot tell you about it. S&PAA publishes no amounts and no period label. Twelve of twelve is the sharpest single fact on this page, and it is a statement about the composition of a list, not about how much money changed hands or when. The missing period matters on its own: the list could be years out of date and a reader has no way to tell.

the organisation that discloses more and takes less

The Jed Foundation publishes seven dollar bands, and its entire drug-industry presence is one foundation gift in the $25,000–$99,999 band plus five smaller ones [6] — against $17.6 million of contributed revenue [17].

JED's top band, $1,000,000 and above, is foundations, health plans and media. JED's top band, $1,000,000 and above, is foundations, health plans and media — Fidelis Care/Centene Foundation, Morgan Stanley Foundation, the Penner, Poses and WoodNext foundations, and the Satow family. Kenvue, the Johnson & Johnson consumer spinoff, also sits at $100,000+; it is consumer health, not a psychiatric-drug maker.

JED is on this page because it breaks the pattern. It has one of the best disclosures of any organisation here and one of the smallest pharmaceutical footprints. A page that showed only the drug-funded organisations would be a rigged page. This is what good disclosure and low industry funding look like at the same time — and it demonstrates that the two are not the same variable.

sixteen manufacturers, five tiers, and no dollar figures anywhere

Mental Health America names sixteen drug manufacturers across five ranked tiers, and publishes no dollar value for any tier [7]. Its Clifford Beers Society runs Diamond, Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze.

MHA names funders in programme contexts and names no drug. Its 2025 report describes a Community Impact Zones initiative launched with Otsuka America Pharmaceutical in New Jersey, and free resources developed with Alkermes and others. Those are funder-named programmes, not drug promotion. We do not infer promotion from funding, and MHA is exactly where that rule bites.

no drug money, and a real conflict anyway

Not one of the 34 sponsors the International OCD Foundation names is a drug company. Nearly all of them are treatment providers [9] — residential and intensive-outpatient programmes, hospitals, and a therapy referral platform. Among them: Anxiety Institute, Ascension, BioBehavioral Institute, Cascade Academy, Compass Health Center, ERC Pathlight Mood & Anxiety Center, InStride Health, McLean OCDI, and NOCD.

Label this correctly or get it exactly backwards. A patient organisation whose sponsors are residential and intensive-outpatient providers and a referral platform has a referral-and-admissions conflict, not a prescribing conflict. It is a real conflict; it is a different one. A page that only pattern-matched on drug-company names would score IOCDF clean and would be wrong.

Two things on IOCDF's site look like answers to this question and are not. IOCDF's Conflict of Interest Policy governs officers, directors and key management employees — business relationships, duty to disclose, recusal, an annual signed statement. It says nothing about accepting corporate or industry money, and must not be presented as an industry-funding policy. And its “Our Partners” page lists nonprofits only — it is a collaboration list, not a funder list. The same trap applies to AFSP's conflict-of-interest policy, which likewise governs directors and officers and says nothing about accepting corporate money [13].

the five that publish something other than an answer

Five organisations publish something about their funding that does not tell you who funds them. Each fails differently, and the failure modes are worth naming.

• Child Mind Institute and Active Minds publish logo walls. Names, no amounts, no tiers, no period [11][12]. Neither shows a drug company, and the funder ecology at Child Mind is finance, law, retail and media — a completely different money source. But a logo wall recovered from image alt text is weaker evidence than a printed donor list, so the correct statement for both is none disclosed, never none received. Active Minds does disclose two entries in adjacent conflict classes: the United Health Foundation is payer-affiliated, and TimelyCare is a campus teletherapy vendor selling to the same students Active Minds organises.
• AFSP's partner list never reaches the page. The URL returns HTTP 200, but the list is assembled by script in the browser and the served document contains the unexecuted template code where the names should be [13]. At $48.0 million of revenue, AFSP is the largest organisation here for which we have no readable funder data in either direction. Its financial transparency is otherwise strong — Forms 990 and audited statements back to FY2010.
• CHADD publishes categories and a price list, not donors. No donor list exists, and the Form 990 it posts is page one only, which is a cover sheet [14]. What CHADD does publish is a priced commercial channel: What CHADD does publish is a priced commercial channel — an advertising rate card. Web Premium $2,000 for six months or $3,000 for twelve; Rectangle $1,300 or $2,000. Attention magazine circulation 23,000. Newsletter 49,736 subscribers. Annual conference 1,700+ attendees, with exhibits. It documents that a commercial channel exists and is priced, without pretending to say who bought it.
• ADAA has the best written policy here and we still cannot answer for it. Its board-adopted funding policy commits to non-endorsement, to final editorial control, and to disclosing sources of support [15]. But adaa.org returns HTTP 403 to every automated client, so everything we have is archived. See the note below on why its archived donor list does not settle anything.

The claim we are refusing to make: “ADAA takes no pharmaceutical money.” The archived donor list — gifts over $1,000 for 2022 and 2023 — contains no manufacturers. That negative does not hold and this page does not use it. The list covers donations, and ADAA is majority programme-funded: $1,236,912 of programme service revenue against $1,137,200 of contributions. The channel where industry money would appear, conference sponsorship and exhibits, is the channel the donor list excludes. The list is also three years old.

And Autism Speaks is excluded outright. Its site sits behind a web application firewall, its corporate-partners and annual-report URLs return a 212-byte shell, and the most recent usable Internet Archive capture of its annual-reports page is from January 2018 [19]. No primary disclosure is obtainable and no negative can be verified. Its tax filing is real and we cite it, but it does not appear in any disclosure comparison on this page.

what these funders actually sell

This table answers one question and only one: what does each named funder sell? Every brand, generic name, labeler and application number below is the FDA's own field, re-queried against the openFDA label database on 2026-08-27 [18]. The labeler is the entity printed on the label, which is often a subsidiary rather than the parent — that precision is preserved deliberately.

why there is no percentage on this page

For twelve of the thirteen organisations, no share-of-revenue figure is computable at all. Tier labels with no dollar values, logo walls, untiered name lists and no list at all all yield the same thing: a denominator from the tax return and no numerator. The honest response is to omit the number, not to estimate it.

DBSA is the single exception, and even there the honest object is a floor rather than a percentage. Because DBSA publishes bands, a lower bound is arithmetic: each entity gave at least its band floor. Against DBSA's own audited FY2025 contributions of $2.5M:

Both floors are shown, and neither is a percentage. DBSA's top band is open-ended — “$100,000 or more” — so there is no upper bound at all, no range can be given, and a midpoint would be fabrication. Two defensible classification rules exist, so both are shown rather than one being picked silently. One further caveat: the investor list and the audited contributions line are two different documents in the same PDF and need not have identical scope. The floor survives that; a precise percentage would not.

what this page does not claim

• That any organisation here is a front. They run helplines, peer support groups, campus programmes and education that people rely on. Several of them are the reason a given reader got help at all.
• That any position was bought. No document on this page shows a payment conditioned on a position, and none is implied. Only DBSA has a documented organisation-side drug-class instance, and it ships with DBSA's own cautionary sentence attached.
• That an organisation publishing no drug-company names receives none. Only the Treatment Advocacy Center has a verified negative. Everywhere else the phrase is “none disclosed.”
• That the quiet organisations are the compromised ones. The inference runs the other way as often as not. Opacity is not evidence of wrongdoing; it is evidence of opacity.
• That any percentage of any organisation's revenue came from industry. One floor exists, for one organisation, and it is labelled “at least.”
• That the drug table shows promotion. It shows what companies sell. The inference, where there is one to make, is the reader's.
• That any of this is current beyond its stated date. These are annual report PDFs on each organisation's own publication cycle, not a live registry. Every figure carries the period the organisation gave it, and S&PAA gave none.