Skip to content
Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts Inc

The organization provides direct financial assistance to Individuals seeking abortions.

$293k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$116k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

Health$532kPhilanthropy$20kCrime & Legal$9kEducation$7kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $264,112, the rows itemized in this filing. The $292,836 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $28,724 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 · $22k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $126k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $116k
$22,130
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE MA$116,451
TAPESTRY HEALTH SYSTEMS$37,975
CRHCMAP$28,450
DUPONT CLINIC$23,360
FOUR WOMENS HEALTH CENTER$22,130
PARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE$13,700
BAYSTATE HEALTH$8,546
DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK$6,800
WHOLE WOMENS HEALTH CENTER$6,700
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 (FY24–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 88% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ISHANI VILLAGE PLLC: $9k → 8%BAYSTATE HEALTH: $9k → 14%PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE MA: $116k → 16%TAPESTRY HEALTH SYSTEMS: $38k → 17%MID-MANHATTAN PHYSICAN SERVIC: $12k → 17%DUPONT CLINIC: $24k → 14%WHOLE WOMENS HEALTH CENTER: $7k → 8%PARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE: $16k → 11%CRHCMAP: $28k → 8%PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE MA: $27k → 16%TAPESTRY HEALTH SYSTEMS: $17k → 17%NYAAF: $20k → 17%DUPONT CLINIC: $23k → 14%PARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE: $14k → 11%PARKMED PHYSICIANS: $7k → 17%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.
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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$435k · 6 repeat orgs$140k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
7

Total granted

$435k
$76k

Still filing today

33%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $64k went to new ones.

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

  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE MA
    2× · 2024–2025 · $144k
  • DC
    DUPONT CLINIC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $95k
  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MA
    2× · 2022–2023 · $92k

Funded once

  • N
    NYAAF
    one grant, 2024 · $20k
  • PI
    PARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
  • MP
    MID-MANHATTAN PHYSICAN SERVIC
    one grant, 2024 · $12k
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
04the grantee network

2 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. 2 of the 17 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
2/2
Grantees still filing
1/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE MA: $143,831 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE MADUPONT CLINIC: $94,564 · OtherDUPONT CLINICPLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MA: $92,469 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MAPARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE: $29,975 · OtherPARTNERS IN ABORTION CARECRHCMAP: $28,450 · OtherCRHCMAPFOUR WOMENS HEALTH CENTER: $22,130 · OtherNYAAF: $20,000 · Other+8 more: $69,210 · Other+8 moreTAPESTRY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC: $54,786 · HealthTAPESTRY HEALT…BAYSTATE HEALTH INC: $19,414 · HealthBAYSTATE HEALT…
Other$500,629Health$74,200

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTAPESTRY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC: $54,786 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBAYSTATE HEALTH INC: $19,414 over 2y, 0.1% 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 TAPESTRY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC ↗
  • Who funds BAYSTATE HEALTH INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 60%
  • Tapestry Health Systems Inc: 60% of income from government
  • Baystate Health Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
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 Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts Inc?

Find your warmest path to Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts 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 17 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 Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts’ 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