· Public charity
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 97 grants below total $18,270,814 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $22,527,374 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $4,256,560 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.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k5 grants · $140k
- $50k–250k79 grants · $13M
- $250k+13 grants · $5.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| DC ABORTION FUND | $549,433 |
| RICHMOND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM PROJECT | $547,040 |
| BALTIMORE ABORTION FUND | $517,140 |
| CAROLINA ABORTION FUND | $490,424 |
| BLUE RIDGE ABORTION FUND | $440,585 |
| CHICAGO ABORTION FUND | $396,792 |
| ACCESS REPRODUCTIVE CARE - SOUTHEAST | $394,022 |
| ABORTION FUND OF OHIO | $374,758 |
| KANSAS ABORTION FUND | $372,277 |
| FLORIDA ACCESS NETWORK | $367,009 |
| FUND TEXAS CHOICE | $353,804 |
| HOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE | $311,482 |
| YELLOWHAMMER FUND | $292,780 |
| LILITH FUND | $239,169 |
| SHARE EQUITY | $230,000 |
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 (FY21–25, $2.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 84% of those 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 +61% since the first grant, against -18% for the ones you funded once.
90 repeat relationships — 83 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 10 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, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.2M 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
DC ABORTION FUND5× · 2021–2025 · $4.4M · revenue +244% · 79% of their budget- ARACCESS REPRODUCTIVE CARE - SOUTHEAST5× · 2021–2025 · $4.4M · revenue +3% · 30% of their budget
- AFABORTION FUND OF MARYLAND INC5× · 2021–2025 · $4.3M · revenue +216% · 54% of their budget
Funded once
- ARACCESS REPRODUCTIVE CAREone grant, 2020 · $124k
- WHWOMEN HAVE OPTIONS OHIOone grant, 2020 · $89k
- LFLILITH FUNDone grant, 2020 · $88k
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.
To provide abortion alternatives, to educate clients, and provide alternative counsel.
Health Access Fund works to protect the fundamental right of all people to choose and access quality,dignified and affordable reproductive health care.
Rabbi R.M. Goldstein Fund is organized for the primary purpose of providing financial assistance to persons who recieve abortion care in northwest Louisiana.
The organization offers medical services and resources to women who are or might be pregnant at no cost.
Mobile Male Allies in the Fight for Reproductive Freedoms
Provision of reproductive health services
To transform healthcare by providing natural, holistic and life affirming medical care - Family Medicine and Women?s Health medical services, education opportunities and ongoing support.
Access Walk funds regional organizations that provide access to safe abortion. We know people from every community use abortion services, so we walk to ensure that those services remain available.
The organization's mission is to educate voters on the importance of protecting a woman's right to choose her own reproductive health care.
Ballot issue political action committee advocating for the passage of a constitutional amendment in the State of Ohio to protect reproductive freedom.
Abortion Action Missouri Foundation envisions a world with stigma-free abortion access and reproductive freedom for all.
Power to decide envisions a world where everyone - no matter who they are or where they live - has control over their bodies and can decide if, when, and under what circumstances to get pregnant and have a child. its mission is to advance…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chicago Abortion Fund and the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Women Rising Indigeous Women Rising. 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 19 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) — 13% of your grantees by number, and just 6% 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.
106 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 106 of the 154 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 DC ABORTION FUND ↗
- Who funds ACCESS REPRODUCTIVE CARE - SOUTHEAST ↗
- Who funds ABORTION FUND OF MARYLAND INC ↗
- Who funds RICHMOND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CAROLINA ABORTION FUND ↗
- Who funds BLUE RIDGE ABORTION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO ABORTION FUND ↗
- Who funds Abortion Fund of Ohio ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA ACCESS NETWORK ↗
- Who funds FUND TEXAS CHOICE ↗
- Who funds NEW YORK ABORTION ACCESS FUND ↗
- Who funds SHARE EQUITY ↗
- Who funds HOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds Yellowhammer Fund ↗
- Who funds All-Options ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS LILITH FUND ↗
- Who funds KANSAS ABORTION FUND ↗
- Who funds FAITH ROOTS REPRODUCTIVE ACTION ↗
- Who funds PRETERM CLEVELAND INC ↗
- Who funds TBA FUND INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST ABORTION ACCESS FUND ↗
- Who funds ACCESS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds LOUISIANA ABORTION FUND ↗
- Who funds EMERGENCY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE INC ↗
- Who funds National Network of Abortion Funds ↗
- Who funds OUR JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds MIDWEST ACCESS COALITION ↗
- Who funds Pro-Choice Arizona ↗
- Who funds National Network of Abortion Funds ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S MEDICAL FUND INC ↗
- Who funds COBALT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Eastern Massachusetts Abortion Fund ↗
- Who funds JTP PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Resources for Human Development Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS ↗
- Who funds JANE'S DUE PROCESS INC ↗
- Who funds WILD WEST ACCESS FUND OF NEVADA ↗
- Who funds INDIGENOUS WOMEN RISING INDIGEOUS WOMEN RISING ↗
- Who funds WOMENS EMERGENCY NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds NEW RIVER ABORTION ACCESS FUND ↗
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: Hopewell Fund · Women Donors Network · The Prentice Foundation Inc · Anderson-Rogers Foundation Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · The Brigid Alliance Inc · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · Apiary for Practical Support Inc · New Venture Fund · The Grove Foundation · National Institute for Reproductive Health 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 National Network of Abortion Funds Inc 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.
- Tides for Reproductive Freedom Inc — 100% of income from government
- Planned Parenthood of Northern New England Inc — 2% of income from government
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.