· Public charity
National Women's Health Network
Thousands of individual members support the NWHNs focus on long-term goals: establishing health care that meets the needs of diverse women; protecting the health of all women by opposing the over medicalization of womens normal experience, such as menopause and childbirth.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 19 grants below total $345,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $459,951 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $114,451 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 · FY2023
- Under $10k7 grants · $44k
- $10k–50k12 grants · $302k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Abortion Freedom Ptrshp | $46,800 |
| Movement Labs | $46,000 |
| Online Abortion Resources Squad | $39,200 |
| CRCH Inc | $30,000 |
| KRCRC co 1st Unitarian Church | $25,500 |
| Restricted State Access | $25,000 |
| Social Good Fund Inc | $23,000 |
| Babes Fest inc | $17,500 |
| Changing Women Initiative | $14,000 |
| New Voices for Reproductive Justice | $14,000 |
| Red State Access | $10,500 |
| Abortion Rights Fd Western MA | $10,000 |
| Harm Reduction Ohio | $8,000 |
| Teen Health | $7,000 |
| Oshun Family Center | $7,000 |
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, $42k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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 +297% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2023, 1 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (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 FY2023, 35% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $210k 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
- KHKentucky Health Justice Network Inc2× · 2017–2022 · $79k · revenue +143%
- SESHARE EQUITY2× · 2022–2023 · $67k · revenue +297%
- CRCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +454%
Funded once
- HHHoneybee Healthone grant, 2022 · $100k
- SYShout Your Abortionone grant, 2022 · $50k
- TCTides Centerone grant, 2022 · $40k
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.
The FWHC, which is located in Atlanta, Georgia, provides accessible gynecological health care to all who need it without judgement. As innovative health care leaders, we work collaboratively in the community and nationally to promote…
Health Access Fund works to protect the fundamental right of all people to choose and access quality,dignified and affordable reproductive health care.
Provision of reproductive health services
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,
Organizing at the intersections of racial, economic, and reproductive justice, Holler Health Justice builds power with Appalachian communities and individuals most disproportionately affected by health inequities, including Black,…
Options360 Womens Clinic provides evidence-based educational and medical services related to sexual health in a caring and respectful environment.
To achieve reproductive freedom, feminist women's health center - cedar river clinics provides abortion and reproductive health services and information, so women may determine their own destiny. we are a social change organization that…
Free and sliding scale reproductive, maternal and sexual health clinic providing stigma-free, patient-centered care regardless of insurance, income, or documentation status. See Schedule O for full mission statement.
Abortion Action Missouri Foundation envisions a world with stigma-free abortion access and reproductive freedom for all.
Empower reproductive justice movement
To provide abortion alternatives, to educate clients, and provide alternative counsel.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Voices Pittsburgh Inc and the most unlike its peers is Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants. 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 12 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger 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.
29 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. 29 of the 37 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 Kentucky Health Justice Network Inc ↗
- Who funds SHARE EQUITY ↗
- Who funds Red State Access ↗
- Who funds CAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS ↗
- Who funds KENTUCKY RELIGIOUS COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE INC ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Poder in Action ↗
- Who funds BABES FEST INC ↗
- Who funds ABORTION LIBERATION FUND OF PA ↗
- Who funds CHICO FEMINIST WOMENS HEALTH CENTER dba WOMENS HEALTH SPECIALISTS ↗
- Who funds CHANGING WOMAN INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds NEW VOICES PITTSBURGH INC ↗
- Who funds Women With A Vision ↗
- Who funds THE AFIYA CENTER ↗
- Who funds WEST VIRGINIA FREE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Abortion Action Missouri ↗
- Who funds Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project ↗
- Who funds ABORTION RIGHTS FUND OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CONSUMER HEALTH FIRST ↗
- Who funds SISTERREACH ↗
- Who funds The Montrose Center ↗
- Who funds HARM REDUCTION OHIO ↗
- Who funds OSHUN FAMILY CENTER ↗
- Who funds TEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI ↗
- Who funds PVBLIC FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN LOUISVILLE SECTION ↗
- Who funds EMERGENCY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE INC ↗
- Who funds TBA FUND INC ↗
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 · National Network of Abortion Funds Inc · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Groundswell Fund · National Women's Law Center · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Impactassetsinc · Women Donors Network · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · The Argosy 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 National Women's Health Network 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to National Women's Health Network?
Find your warmest path to National Women's Health Network 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.