Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Naral Pro-Choice America Foundation

Reproductive freedom for all foundation's mission is to develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing legal abortion.

$795k
Granted FY2022
9
Grants FY2022
5
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

66% of Naral Pro-Choice America Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Hopewell Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 7 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2022, the last year Naral Pro-Choice America Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 8 organizations, $785k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

9
’17
8
’18
9
’19
20
’20
12
’21
8
’22
3
’23
7
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.

Civil Rights$2.3MPublic Benefit$1.3MArts & Culture$601kHealth$427kEducation$250kScience & Tech$225kHuman Services$189kPhilanthropy$185kOther$0
02FY2022 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2022

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $725k
$75,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$46M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Urge Unite For Reproductive$200,000
Planned Parenthood Federation$200,000
National Asian Pacific American Womens Forum$100,000
Kansans for Constitutional Freedom Inc$100,000
The ReImagination Lab$75,000
Hopewell Fund$50,000
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Inc$30,000
Power Rising$20,000
Sister Song$10,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $549k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 80% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%The Anika Foundation: $25k → 11%NARAL Pro-Choice MO Foundation: $64k → 21%NARAL Pro-Choice NC Foundation: $43k → 11%SISTER SONG INC (2): $200k → 13%NARAL Pro-Choice MO Foundation: $50k → 21%NARAL Pro-Choice NC Foundation: $25k → 11%The Gathering for Justice: $50k → 17%NARAL Pro-Choice MO Foundation: $32k → 21%NARAL Pro-Choice NC Foundation: $19k → 11%NARAL Pro-Choice MO Foundation: $27k → 21%NARAL Pro-Choice MO Foundation: $14k → 21%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

WA
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
SD
OH
CT
CA
CO
MO
VA
MD
KS
TN
NC
DC
AL
GA
TX

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

63%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$2.7M · 18 repeat orgs$1.6M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +60% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.

18 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2022, 15 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call). Read against FY2022, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
16

Total granted

$2.7M
$630k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+60%
+7%

Still filing today

94%
81%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 36% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $367k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsHuman ServicesEducationArts & CultureHealthPublic BenefitOther

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

  • TA
    THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION
    2× · 2019–2020 · $535k · revenue ×44 · 27% of their budget
  • RE
    REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $249k · revenue +1000%
  • PW
    Pro-Choice Washington Foundation
    5× · 2017–2021 · $233k · revenue +253%

Funded once

  • MM
    MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA
    one grant, 2020 · $250k · revenue +21%
  • WM
    Womens March Inc
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue 0%
  • TG
    THE GATHERING FOR JUSTICE INC
    one grant, 2017 · $50k · revenue -41%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Pro-Choice Washington

To protect and promote every persons right to access the full range of reproductive healthcare choices in Washington State, including safe and legal abortion, through education, advocacy, lobbying and coalition-building

—
2
Pro-Choice Arizona

Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…

Health
3
Abortion Forward

Abortion forward is committed to developing and sustaining a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every ohioan the right to make personal decisions regarding a full range of reproductive choices, including legal…

—
4
Women Winning

To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.

Public Benefit
5
New River Abortion Access Fund

New river abortion access fund builds power and provides direct financial and practical support to southwest virginians and appalachians seeking abortion care. we dedicated to ensuring that all people have the autonomy and resources to…

Civil Rights
6
Pro-Choice Minnesota

To develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee women the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices.

—
7
Pro Choice Virginia

Repro rising virginia is a bold, effective, and trusted leader in the political fight for reproductive freedom in virginia. we advocate for laws and policies that guarantee the right to bodily autonomy, including access to abortion care…

Civil Rights
8
National Network of Abortion Funds Inc

The national network of abortion funds (nnaf) is determined to build a world where all reproductive options are valued, accessible, and stigma-free. we believe all people know how to best care for their own bodies and build their own…

Environment
9
Forward Together

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…

Health
10
Dc Abortion Fund

The DC Abortion Fund helps pay for the abortion care of anyone living in or traveling to the DC Metro region, without restrictions or requirements. DC is a vital access point for the entire East Coast,

Human Services
11
Carolina Abortion Fund

The Carolina Abortion Fund supports individuals who have decided to have an abortion by providing financial, logistical, and emotional support.

Health
12
Health Access Fund

Health Access Fund works to protect the fundamental right of all people to choose and access quality,dignified and affordable reproductive health care.

Health

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Equity Now Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Womensmarchla Foundation. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyWomen & Girls Leadership De…Immigrant Worker SupportCommunity FoundationsPolicy Research and AdvocacyPregnancy Support Services
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 22 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%3%<5yr14%17%5–10yr19%19%10–20yr16%33%20–35yr13%25%35–55yr16%3%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%5%<5yr14%6%5–10yr19%35%10–20yr16%34%20–35yr13%18%35–55yr16%2%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
4%
2/47
the rest of the field
13%
240,395/1,819,518

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.

04the grantee network

43 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. 43 of the 47 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
41/43
Grantees still filing
24/43
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION — $535,000 · OtherTHE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATIO…PRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FOUNDATION — $223,122 · OtherPRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FOUNDATIONPRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUNDATION — $172,217 · OtherPRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUNDATIONMissourians for Constitutional Freedom — $115,000 · OtherMissourians for Constitutional Fre…KANSANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM INC — $100,000 · OtherKANSANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM…CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS INSTITUTE INC — $65,000 · OtherNEO Philanthropy Inc — $200,000 · OtherNEO Philanthropy Inc+9 more — $254,771 · Other+9 moreREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC — $249,294 · Civil RightsREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW …Pro-Choice Washington Foundation — $232,806 · Civil RightsPro-Choice Washington Fo…URGE UNITE FOR REPRODUCTIVE & GENDER EQUITY — $200,000 · Civil RightsURGE UNITE FOR REPRODUCT…COBALT FOUNDATION — $115,000 · Civil RightsCOBALT FOUNDATIONNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM — $100,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC A…ABORTION FORWARD ALLIANCE — $81,746 · Civil RightsABORTION FORWARD ALLIANC…Yellowhammer Fund — $40,000 · Civil Rights+7 more — $160,000 · Civil Rights+7 moreHOPEWELL FUND — $1,050,000 · PhilanthropyHOPEWELL FUNDAmalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc — $110,000 · PhilanthropyAmalgamated Charitable …SISTERSONG INC — $210,000 · Human ServicesSISTERSONG …Abortion Action Missouri Foundation — $187,196 · Human ServicesAbortion Ac…PRO-CHOICE NC FOUNDATION — $87,005 · Human ServicesPRO-CHOICE …THE GATHERING FOR JUSTICE INC — $50,000 · Human ServicesTHE GATHERI…TIDES CENTER — $25,000 · Human ServicesTHE ANIKA FOUNDATION — $25,000 · Human ServicesPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC — $200,000 · HealthPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION — $127,984 · Health+1 more — $10,000 · HealthThe Reimagination Lab Inc — $225,000 · Arts & CultureNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc — $65,593 · Arts & Culture+1 more — $10,000 · Arts & CultureMEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA — $250,000 · EducationPODER — $25,000 · EducationPOWER RISING — $20,000 · Education
Other$1,665,110Civil Rights$1,178,846Philanthropy$1,160,000Human Services$584,201Health$337,984Arts & Culture$300,593Education$295,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetHOPEWELL FUND — $1,050,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTHE AMERICAN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION — $535,000 over 2y, 27% of budgetMEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA — $250,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC — $249,294 over 5y, 17% of budgetPro-Choice Washington Foundation — $232,806 over 5y, 17% of budgetThe Reimagination Lab Inc — $225,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetPRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FOUNDATION — $223,122 over 3y, 78% of budgetSISTERSONG INC — $210,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC — $200,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetURGE UNITE FOR REPRODUCTIVE & GENDER EQUITY — $200,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc — $200,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAbortion Action Missouri Foundation — $187,196 over 4y, 42% of budgetPRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUNDATION — $172,217 over 5y, 13% of budgetPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION — $127,984 over 3y, 24% of budgetMissourians for Constitutional Freedom — $115,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetCOBALT FOUNDATION — $115,000 over 2y, 6.7% of budgetAmalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc — $110,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM — $100,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetPRO-CHOICE NC FOUNDATION — $87,005 over 2y, 21% of budgetABORTION FORWARD ALLIANCE — $81,746 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc — $65,593 over 2y, 11% of budgetCONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS INSTITUTE INC — $65,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetPRO-CHOICE CONNECTICUT FOUNDATION INC — $51,958 over 2y, 89% of budgetWomens March Inc — $50,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE GATHERING FOR JUSTICE INC — $50,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetYellowhammer Fund — $40,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetPRO-CHOICE CONNECTICUT INC — $38,000 over 2y, 33% of budgetHigher Heights Leadership Fund — $25,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetMOTHERING JUSTICE — $25,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS CENTER — $25,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetTIDES CENTER — $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LEADERSHIP CENTER FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL STUDIES — $25,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetPODER — $25,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetNEW GEORGIA PROJECT INC — $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ANIKA FOUNDATION — $25,000 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetSPARK REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE NOW — $25,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetPOWER RISING — $20,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetCONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS FOUNDATION INC — $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAvow Foundation for Abortion Access — $15,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetMemphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc — $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBIRTH IN COLOR RVA FOUNDATION — $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetWOMENSMARCHLA FOUNDATION — $10,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budget
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.

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.

Hopewell FundThe Susan Thompson Bu…Reproductive Freedom …New Venture FundPlanned Parenthood Fe…National Institute fo…Abortion Forward Alli…Amalgamated Charitabl…Ms Foundation for Wom…Rockefeller Philanthr…The William & Flora H…Tides Foundation
Hopewell FundDC44.6× affinity20 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hopewell Fund · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Reproductive Freedom for All · New Venture Fund · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc · Abortion Forward Alliance · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Tides Foundation

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 Naral Pro-Choice America Foundation 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%23%51%90%your share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 47 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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