· Public charity
Ifwhenhow
If/When/How transforms the law and policy landscape through advocacy, support, and organizing so all people have the power to determine if, when, and how to define, create, and sustain familiesContinued on Schedule O
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 8 grants below total $612,400 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $656,225 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $43,825 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ALLIANCE OF CHICAGO | $84,700 |
| SPARK REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE | $84,700 |
| PHYSICIANS FOR REPROD HEALTH | $77,000 |
| ELEPHANT CIRCLE | $77,000 |
| JANES DUE PROCESS | $77,000 |
| POSITIVE WOMENS NETWORK | $72,000 |
| NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENDER SVCS | $70,000 |
| BROOKLYN DEFENDER SERVICES | $70,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $1.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 4% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +27% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $217k 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
- PFPhysicians For Reproductive Health3× · 2022–2024 · $226k · revenue +27%
MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER4× · 2017–2021 · $210k · revenue +21%- MSMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER ACTION FUND3× · 2022–2024 · $197k · revenue ×221
Funded once
- ROREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEYone grant, 2017 · $118k
- WEWOMEN ENGAGED INCone grant, 2022 · $73k · revenue -48%
- ARAlternate RootsIncone grant, 2021 · $70k · revenue -74%
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.
Women donors network advances a just, equitable, and sustainable world through the power of philanthropy, women's leadership, and collective and individual action.
Forward Together is a national reproductive justice organization that centers people, families, and communities who experience reproductive oppression. They prioritize queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color and utilize…
Gender justice is a nonprofit legal and policy advocacy organization working to advance gender equity through the law.
Pai advances evidence, policies and programs to enable women, youth and at-risk communities to access sexual and reproductive health as core to health equity, climate resilience, economic well-being and gender equality.
Women deliver is a global feminist advocacy organization with a clear mission: to ensure that every self-identifying girl and woman has control over her body and life. see organization's full mission statement in schedule o.
Pregnancy justice advances and defends the rights of pregnant people, no matter if they give birth, experience a pregnancy loss, or have an abortion. we advance our mission in four ways: by providing criminal defense, by advocating for…
A legal organization working to advance the rights of women, girls, and gender diverse people. We work on issues of reproductive rights, gender-based violence, climate, and racial justice in East Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the…
Ultraviolet action (uva) is a 501c4 organization. ultraviolet action is the premier national organization advocating for gender justice issues using creative, strategic campaigning and digital-first organizing. ultraviolet drives feminist…
To advance and protect women's legal rights. the center focuses on major policy areas of importance to women and their families including education, employment, family economic security, and health, with special attention given to the…
To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.
Ipas works globally to advance reproductive justice by expanding access to abortion and contraception.
Ultraviolet education fund (uvef) is a 501c3 organization. ultraviolet is the premier national organization advocating for gender justice issues using creative, strategic campaigning and digital-first organizing. ultraviolet drives…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum and the most unlike its peers is Alliancechicago. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 33 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
24 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. 24 of the 25 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 TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds SPARK REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE NOW ↗
- Who funds SISTERLOVE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Physicians For Reproductive Health ↗
- Who funds MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER ↗
- Who funds MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S LAW PROJECT ↗
- Who funds LEGAL VOICE ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCECHICAGO ↗
- Who funds ELEPHANT CIRCLE ↗
- Who funds URGE UNITE FOR REPRODUCTIVE & GENDER EQUITY ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL LGBTQ TASK FORCE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL BLACK WOMENS HEALTH PROJECT dba BLACK WOMENS HEALTH IMPERATIVE ↗
- Who funds JANE'S DUE PROCESS INC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN ENGAGED INC ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENDER SERVICE INC ↗
- Who funds BROOKLYN DEFENDER SERVICES ↗
- Who funds Alternate RootsInc ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN HEALTH FORUM ↗
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: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Groundswell Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · The Irving Harris Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Tides Center · Tides Foundation · Ms Foundation for Women 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 Ifwhenhow 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.