Skip to content
Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$980k
Granted FY2021
9
Grants FY2021
9
States reached
$138k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

90% of Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation’s FY2023 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. FY2023 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2021, the last year Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 9 organizations, $980k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

9
’21
1
’23

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

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2023.

Civil Rights$865kHealth$413kHuman Services$157kArts & Culture$79k
02FY2021 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$137,585
Median grant
9
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NARAL PRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FNDN$137,585
NARAL PRO-CHOICE WASHINGTON FOUND'N$137,585
NARAL PRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUND'N$137,585
PRO-CHOICE MASSACHUSETTS FNDN$137,585
NARAL PRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUND'N$137,585
NARAL PRO-CHOICE N CAROLINA FNDN$78,620
NARAL PRO-CHOICE MARYLAND FUND$78,620
NARAL PRO-CHOICE MISSOURI FOUND'N$78,620
NARAL PRO-CHOICE CONNECTICUT FNDN$56,158
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–21, $157k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NARAL PRO-CHOICE MISSOURI FOUND'N: $79k → 21%NARAL PRO-CHOICE N CAROLINA FNDN: $79k → 11%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
MA
OR
CT
MO
VA
MD
NC
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 field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. 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 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
4
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.

—
5
Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire

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.

Health
6
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…

—
7
MEN4CHOICE Advocacy

Mobile Male Allies in the Fight for Reproductive Freedoms

Civil Rights
8
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…

—
9
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
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
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.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Equity Now Foundation Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

11 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HOPEWELL FUND: $480,180 · PhilanthropyHOPEWELL FUNDPRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $137,585 · OtherPRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FOUNDAT…PRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUNDATION: $137,585 · OtherPRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUNDATIONPRO-CHOICE CONNECTICUT FOUNDATION INC: $56,158 · OtherPRO-CHOICE CONNECTICUT FOUND…REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW INC: $53,125 · OtherREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW INCREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC: $137,585 · Civil RightsREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY …Pro-Choice Washington Foundation: $137,585 · Civil RightsPro-Choice Washingto…Abortion Action Missouri Foundation: $78,620 · Human ServicesAbortion Ac…PRO-CHOICE NC FOUNDATION: $78,620 · Human ServicesPRO-CHOICE …PRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION: $137,585 · HealthPRO-CHOICE…NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc: $78,620 · Arts & Culture
Philanthropy$480,180Other$384,453Civil Rights$275,170Human Services$157,240Health$137,585Arts & Culture$78,620

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHOPEWELL FUND: $480,180 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC: $137,585 over 1y, 34% of budgetPRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $137,585 over 1y, 73% of budgetPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION: $137,585 over 1y, 6.9% of budgetPRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUNDATION: $137,585 over 1y, 36% of budgetPro-Choice Washington Foundation: $137,585 over 1y, 24% of budgetNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc: $78,620 over 1y, 28% of budgetAbortion Action Missouri Foundation: $78,620 over 1y, 23% of budgetPRO-CHOICE NC FOUNDATION: $78,620 over 1y, 41% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW INC: $53,125 over 1y, 21% 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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Reproductive Freedom …Reproductive Freedom …Hopewell FundThe Susan Thompson Bu…New Venture FundNational Institute fo…The Lalor Foundation …Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Reproductive Freedom for AllDC26.4× 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 Health Inc · The Lalor Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 25%
  • Reproductive Equity Now Foundation Inc: 25% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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.
04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation 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 11 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2021, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Naral Pro-Choice Ohio’s 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