· Public charity
Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino
The community action fund (caf) is the political and advocacy arm of planned parenthood of orange and san bernardino counties.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 71% of COMMUNITY ACTION FUND OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD ORANGE & SAN BERNARDINO’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $50k–250k3 grants · $250k
- $250k+2 grants · $500k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTION FREEDOM | $250,000 |
| ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS | $250,000 |
| MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS | $100,000 |
| COALITION TO PROTECT ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE | $100,000 |
| COLORADANS FOR PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM | $50,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 79% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of 0% since the first grant, against -4% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $150k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- FPFLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM2× · 2023–2024 · $300k
- NFNEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM2× · 2024–2025 · $300k
- PAPRO-CHOICE ARIZONA ACTION FUND2× · 2024–2025 · $300k
Funded once
THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INCone grant, 2023 · $200k · revenue -4%- YOYES ON PROPOSITION 1 - PROTECTING CHOICE IN CALIFORNIA A PROJECT OF PPACone grant, 2023 · $200k
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHEAST INCone grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +15%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The Protect Our Right Coalition has been created to develop, qualify for the 2024 general election, and pass a constitutional amendment to secure the right to abortion for Nebraskans.
Ballot issue political action committee in the State of Ohio to advocate for the passage of a constitutional amendment to protect reproductive rights.
Protect Women Ohio Action is a Section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization and registered ballot committee in the State of Ohio engaged in advocacy activities related to the "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and…
Mobile Male Allies in the Fight for Reproductive Freedoms
PP Advocates is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. Our mission is to preserve and broaden access to reproductive health care through legislation, public education, and electoral activity.
To support and protect, as a fundamental right and value, a woman's freedom to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices.
To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact
Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, Inc. is a coalition of statewide reproductive heal, rights, and justice organizations working to secure abortion access and protect reproductive freedom in Ohio.
Ballot issue political action committee to advocate for the defeat of a constitutional amendment that would require a 60% threshold for any future constitutional amendments.
Amends Constitution: Specifies that prohibited discrimination includes discrimination concerning gender identity/pregnancy, related health decisions, sexual orientation
Abortion forward alliance uses public education to develop a constituency that supports the right of every ohioan to make personal choices about a full range of reproductive options, including legal abortion.
The Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire removes financial barriers for anyone receiving abortion care in or from New Hampshire through direct service funding and movement building guided by patient need.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom and the most unlike its peers is Equality California Issues Pac. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 15 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds FLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds NEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds Protect Our Healthcare ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC ↗
- Who funds MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHEAST INC ↗
- Who funds Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom PAC ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD ALLIANCE ADVOCATES SERVING AK HI ID IN KY AND WA ↗
- Who funds COLORADANS FOR PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds Planned Parenthood Vermont Action Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds Equality California Issues PAC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte Inc · Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Alliance for Youth Action · Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest · American Civil Liberties Union Inc · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino?
Find your warmest path to Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood Orange & San Bernardino 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.