Skip to content
Abortion Care Network at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Abortion Care Network

ABORTION CARE NETWORK's (acn) unique role in the abortion care community is to support independent abortion care providers and the patients they serve.

$3.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
82
Grants FY2025still arriving
32
States reached
$125k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Health$10MCrime & Legal$30k
02FY2025 · 82 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 82 grants below total $3,212,003, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,453,122 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $241,119 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $21k
  • $10k–50k57 grants · $1.7M
  • $50k–250k22 grants · $1.5M
$35,224
Median grant
32
States reached
$9.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FEMINIST CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE LIBERATION$125,000
DESERT STAR FAMILY PLANNING$102,096
MEMPHIS CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DBA CHOICES CENTER FOR REPR HEALTH$100,000
HOPE MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC (HOPE CLINIC CHICAGO)$78,244
A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF GREENSBORO$75,735
VALLEY ABORTION GROUP$75,000
CEDAR RIVER CLINICS$71,390
ALLEGHENY REPRODUCTIVE CENTER$71,252
CHOICES WOMEN'S CENTER$60,175
WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF WEST VIRGINIA$60,000
WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH OF CHARLOTTESVILLE$60,000
WHOLE WOMEN'S HEALTH LLC$60,000
BSSIMICHAEL BENJAMIN MD$55,000
MY CHOICE MEDICAL CENTER (JOSEPH PAYMAN MD)$55,000
AFFIRMATIVE CARE SOLUTIONS$55,000
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 (FY25–25, $24k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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%JUST CHOICE: $24k → 15%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

ME
NH
WA
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
NV
WY
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
CO
NE
KY
WV
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
DC
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$12M · 73 repeat orgs$1.9M to everyone else

73 repeat relationships: 58 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 18 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

73
31

Total granted

$12M
$1.3M

Still filing today

32%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $597k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthCivil RightsArts & CultureHuman 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

  • WW
    WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $577k · revenue +16%
  • WH
    WOMENS HEALTH PROJECT INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $431k · revenue +66%
  • FW
    Feminist Womens Health Center Inc
    5× · 2021–2025 · $413k · revenue +32%

Funded once

  • EW
    EMW WOMEN'S SURGICAL CENTER
    one grant, 2022 · $440k
  • WH
    WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF FLINT PC
    one grant, 2022 · $121k
  • AW
    AL WOMEN'S CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE ALTERNATIVES
    one grant, 2022 · $119k
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
A Woman's Choice Inc

Provide life affirming medical, counseling, and educational services designed to empower clientele to make healthy lifestyle choices.

Health
2
Lifechoices Womens Care Inc

To transform healthcare by providing natural, holistic and life affirming medical care - Family Medicine and Women?s Health medical services, education opportunities and ongoing support.

Health
3
Willow Womens Center

The organization offers medical services and resources to women who are or might be pregnant at no cost.

Human Services
4
A Women's Pregnancy Center

To provide abortion alternatives, to educate clients, and provide alternative counsel.

Human Services
5
Obria Medical Clinic of Ames

To provide reproductive healthcare in a way which empowers our community to make informed, life-affirming decisions. our core values are to be christ-centered, excellence, compassion, humility, and a passion for life.

Health
6
Options360 Women's Clinic

Options360 Womens Clinic provides evidence-based educational and medical services related to sexual health in a caring and respectful environment.

Civil Rights
7
Family Planning Services of Sunmj

Family planning is a non-profit health care organization dedicated to providing confidential and accessible services through reproductive health to improve the quality of life and well-being of the community. the caring staff seeks to help…

—
8
Alpha Womens Center

Alpha women's center operates mobile medical clinics serving women with pregnancy needs by providing medical, material and emotional support.

Human Services
9
A Womens Care Center

Our mission is to provide services to women with unplanned pregnancies in a compassionate and respectful environment

Health
10
Life Choices Medical Clinic

Help women who are pregnant by giving them options to save their baby.

Unclassified
11
Mya Womens Center Inc

Our mission is to empower women facing unplanned pregnancies with compassionate & professional medical care.

Human Services
12
Wise Choices Pregnancy Resource Center Inc

Assistance to pregnant women in crisis, offering free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, sti testing, counseling, education and referrals to aid the mother and father as advocates for the unborn. we empower life affirming choices.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Women's Health Center of Maryland Inc; the most unlike its peers is Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. 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

29 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. 29 of the 123 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
29/29
Grantees still filing
21/29
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EMW WOMEN'S SURGICAL CENTER: $440,000 · OtherWOMENS HEALTH PROJECT INC: $430,681 · OtherFeminist Womens Health Center Inc: $413,000 · OtherCLINICS FOR ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE EXCELLENCE LLC: $390,351 · OtherTHE HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN LTD: $346,553 · OtherAFFIRMATIVE CARE SOLUTIONS LLC: $343,345 · Other+96 more: $7,857,316 · Other+96 moreWHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE: $577,451 · HealthWHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLI…West Alabama Womens Center Inc: $401,818 · HealthWest Alabama Womens Cente…CIRCLE OF HOPE HEALTH CARE SVCS INC: $395,000 · HealthCIRCLE OF HOPE HEALTH CAR…PRETERM CLEVELAND INC: $267,284 · HealthPRETERM CLEVELAND INCDESERT STAR INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY PLANNING INC: $249,696 · HealthDESERT STAR INSTITUTE FOR…Trust Women Foundation Inc: $220,994 · HealthTrust Women Foundation In…BLUE MOUNTAIN CLINIC INC: $185,300 · HealthBLUE MOUNTAIN CLINIC INCMABEL WADSWORTH WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR: $177,500 · HealthMABEL WADSWORTH WOMEN'S H…HEALTHQUARTERS INC: $130,627 · HealthJTP PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION: $115,400 · Health+7 more: $377,549 · Health+7 moreWOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF WEST VIRGINIA INC: $253,000 · Civil RightsCENTER OF SOUTHWEST CULTURE INC: $95,000 · Arts & CultureTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $25,000 · EducationCHOICE NETWORK INC: $24,186 · Human Services
Other$10,221,246Health$3,098,619Civil Rights$253,000Arts & Culture$95,000Education$25,000Human Services$24,186

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE: $577,451 over 6y, 4.9% of budgetWOMENS HEALTH PROJECT INC: $430,681 over 6y, 13% of budgetFeminist Womens Health Center Inc: $413,000 over 5y, 3.5% of budgetWest Alabama Womens Center Inc: $401,818 over 5y, 37% of budgetCIRCLE OF HOPE HEALTH CARE SVCS INC: $395,000 over 4y, 15% of budgetBOULDER VALLEY WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER INC: $296,788 over 6y, 4.3% of budgetPRETERM CLEVELAND INC: $267,284 over 6y, 1.8% of budgetMemphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc: $257,500 over 4y, 2.6% of budgetWOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF WEST VIRGINIA INC: $253,000 over 5y, 6.5% of budgetDESERT STAR INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY PLANNING INC: $249,696 over 3y, 16% of budgetFEMINIST WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER: $231,240 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetTrust Women Foundation Inc: $220,994 over 6y, 1.7% of budgetBLUE MOUNTAIN CLINIC INC: $185,300 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetMABEL WADSWORTH WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR: $177,500 over 6y, 3.9% of budgetTHE FEMINIST HEALTH CENTER OF PORTSMOUTH INC: $168,420 over 5y, 6.1% of budgetWE HEALTH CLINIC P A: $138,000 over 6y, 3.6% of budgetHEALTHQUARTERS INC: $130,627 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetJTP PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION: $115,400 over 4y, 2.3% of budgetFAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF MAINE INC: $97,699 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetCONCORD FEMINIST HEALTH CENTER: $95,000 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetCENTER OF SOUTHWEST CULTURE INC: $95,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetWOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF MARYLAND INC: $75,000 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetCHICO FEMINIST WOMENS HEALTH CENTER dba WOMENS HEALTH SPECIALISTS: $60,400 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCare for All Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetGRACE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES: $40,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetFEMHEALTH USA INC: $29,450 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds WOMENS HEALTH PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds Feminist Womens Health Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds West Alabama Womens Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds CIRCLE OF HOPE HEALTH CARE SVCS INC ↗
  • Who funds BOULDER VALLEY WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds PRETERM CLEVELAND INC ↗
  • Who funds Memphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF WEST VIRGINIA INC ↗
  • Who funds DESERT STAR INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY PLANNING INC ↗
  • Who funds FEMINIST WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Trust Women Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds BLUE MOUNTAIN CLINIC INC ↗
  • Who funds MABEL WADSWORTH WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR ↗
  • Who funds THE FEMINIST HEALTH CENTER OF PORTSMOUTH INC ↗
  • Who funds WE HEALTH CLINIC P A ↗
  • Who funds HEALTHQUARTERS INC ↗

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.

Hopewell FundWomen's Reproductive …National Network of A…The Susan Thompson Bu…Women Donors NetworkNational Institute fo…National Women's Law …The Prentice Foundati…Abortion Care for Ten…Direct ReliefTara Health FoundationAnderson-Rogers Found…
Hopewell FundDC111.7× affinity61 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hopewell Fund · Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project · National Network of Abortion Funds Inc · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Women Donors Network · National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc · National Women's Law Center · The Prentice Foundation Inc · Abortion Care for Tennessee · Direct Relief · Tara Health Foundation · Anderson-Rogers Foundation Inc

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 Abortion Care Network funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Abortion Care Network. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 70%
  • Healthquarters Inc: 70% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 Abortion Care Network?

Find your warmest path to Abortion Care Network 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 123 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Abortion Care Network’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