Loading…
· Public charity
NARAL PRO-CHOICE OHIO FOUNDATION
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.
$533k
Granted FY2023
2
Grants
2
Communities
$480k
Largest
01What you fund
0175% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2021–2023.
Philanthropy$480kCivil Rights$275kHuman Services$157kHealth$138kArts & Culture$79kOther$384k
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2021
choicefreedomfundamentalleadershipresearchprotectwoman's
2023
hopewellsocialinnovative
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2023 · 2 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- $50k–250k1 grant · $53k
- $250k+1 grant · $480k
$480,180
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
- HOPEWELL FUND$480,180
- REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION$53,125
02The need
04
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 (FY21–21, $157k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16% — the area typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your 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 North Carolina
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.
Health
3
Pro-Choice Minnesota
Pro-choice minnesota fills a unique role as the political arm of the pro-choice movement in minnesota. since our founding over 50 years ago, we have developed the expertise to achieve electoral successes as a means to an end: changing…
—
4
Pro Choice Virginia
To develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every person the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing…
Civil Rights
5
Carolina Abortion Fund
The Carolina Abortion Fund supports individuals who have decided to have an abortion by providing financial, logistical, and emotional support.
Health
6
Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom
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.
—
7
Naral Pro-Choice Maryland Inc
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 options, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing…
—
8
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
9
Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation
Naral pro-choice ohio foundation 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.
Civil Rights
10
Naral Pro-Choice Ohio
Naral pro-choice ohio 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…
—
11
Pro Choice Oregon
Pro-choice oregon works to defend and expand access to essential health care services and education to ensure reproductive freedom is available and accessible to all people in oregon.
—
12
Pro-Choice Connecticut Inc
Defending and preservinc women's reproductive choices.
—
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Equity Now Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Hopewell Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
11 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Philanthropy$480,180Other$384,453Civil Rights$275,170Human Services$157,240Health$137,585Arts & Culture$78,620
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 HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUND'N ↗
- Who funds PRO-CHOICE MASSACHUSETTS FNDN ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUND'N ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE WASHINGTON FOUND'N ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FNDN ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE N CAROLINA FNDN ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE MISSOURI FOUND'N ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE MARYLAND FUND ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE CONNECTICUT FNDN ↗
- Who funds REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION ↗
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.
Reproductive Freedom for AllDC26.9× affinity10 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Reproductive Freedom for All · Reproductive Freedom for All Foundation · Hopewell Fund · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · New Venture Fund · National Institute for Reproductive · The Lalor Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 organisation NARAL PRO-CHOICE OHIO 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
04Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: NARAL PRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FNDN.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~10 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 8 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 3.8× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 363283998 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on NARAL PRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FNDN, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 10 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 73% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines