Skip to content
National Women's Health Network at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$460k
Granted FY2023
19
Grants FY2023
12
States reached
$47k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Health$426kCivil Rights$169kHuman Services$68kScience & Tech$46kInternational$37kPhilanthropy$23kPublic Benefit$18kArts & Culture$18kOther$0
02FY2023 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 19 grants below total $345,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $459,951 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $114,451 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k7 grants · $44k
  • $10k–50k12 grants · $302k
$14,000
Median grant
12
States reached
$5.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
New Voices for Reproductive Justice$14,000
Changing Women Initiative$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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Abortion Liberation Fd of PA: $16k → 22%The Afiya Center: $12k → 14%PVBLIC Fdtn: $7k → 14%Teen Health: $7k → 23%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
IL
NY
MA
OH
PA
CA
KY
WV
MD
AZ
NM
TN
LA
MS
GA
TX
FL
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

29%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$231k · 4 repeat orgs$565k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +297% since the first grant, against +7% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
18

Total granted

$231k
$355k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+297%
+7%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 35% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $210k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’21’22’23
HealthHuman ServicesCivil RightsEducationInternationalPublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • KH
    Kentucky Health Justice Network Inc
    2× · 2017–2022 · $79k · revenue +143%
  • SE
    SHARE EQUITY
    2× · 2022–2023 · $67k · revenue +297%
  • CR
    CAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +454%

Funded once

  • HH
    Honeybee Health
    one grant, 2022 · $100k
  • SY
    Shout Your Abortion
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • TC
    Tides Center
    one grant, 2022 · $40k
How this is measured

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

04Its 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
Feminist Womens Health Center Inc

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…

—
2
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
3
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
4
Prrowess Inc

Provision of reproductive health services

—
5
Holler Health Justice Inc

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,…

Civil Rights
6
Options360 Women's Clinic

Options360 Womens Clinic provides evidence-based educational and medical services related to sexual health in a caring and respectful environment.

Civil Rights
7
Feminist Women's Health Center

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…

—
8
Abortion Action Missouri Foundation

Abortion Action Missouri Foundation envisions a world with stigma-free abortion access and reproductive freedom for all.

Human Services
9
West Alabama Womens Center Inc

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.

Health
10
A Women's Pregnancy Center

To provide abortion alternatives, to educate clients, and provide alternative counsel.

Human Services
11
Daria Services

Empower reproductive justice movement

Civil Rights
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Voices Pittsburgh Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

29 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

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

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
14
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/29
Grantees still filing
19/29
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Honeybee Health: $100,000 · OtherHoneybee HealthShout Your Abortion: $50,000 · OtherShout Your AbortionMovement Labs: $46,000 · OtherMovement LabsRed State Access: $45,500 · OtherRed State AccessTides Center: $40,000 · OtherTides CenterOnline Abortion Resources Squad: $39,200 · OtherOnline Abortion Resources SquadKENTUCKY RELIGIOUS COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE INC: $25,500 · OtherKENTUCKY RELIGIOUS COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE INCBABES FEST INC: $17,500 · Other+9 more: $71,000 · Other+9 moreKentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $78,500 · HealthKentucky Health Justice Netwo…SHARE EQUITY: $66,800 · HealthSHARE EQUITYCHICO FEMINIST WOMENS HEALTH CENTER dba WOMENS HEALTH SPECIALISTS: $15,000 · HealthCHICO FEMINIST WOMENS HEALTH …CHANGING WOMAN INITIATIVE: $14,000 · HealthCHANGING WOMAN INITIATIVEWomen With A Vision: $13,000 · HealthWomen With A VisionWomen's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project: $10,000 · HealthThe Montrose Center: $9,000 · Health+1 more: $7,000 · HealthSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $23,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationSISTERREACH: $9,000 · EducationABORTION LIBERATION FUND OF PA: $16,000 · Human ServicesTHE AFIYA CENTER: $11,500 · Human ServicesPVBLIC FOUNDATION INC: $7,000 · Human ServicesTEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $7,000 · Human ServicesCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS: $40,000 · InternationalNEW VOICES PITTSBURGH INC: $14,000 · Civil RightsABORTION RIGHTS FUND OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC: $10,000 · Civil RightsTBA FUND INC: $5,500 · Civil RightsPoder in Action: $18,000 · Public Benefit
Other$434,700Health$213,300Education$42,000Human Services$41,500International$40,000Civil Rights$29,500Public Benefit$18,000

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 budgetKentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $78,500 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetSHARE EQUITY: $66,800 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetRed State Access: $45,500 over 2y, 29% of budgetCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS: $40,000 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetKENTUCKY RELIGIOUS COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE INC: $25,500 over 1y, 20% of budgetSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $23,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBABES FEST INC: $17,500 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetABORTION LIBERATION FUND OF PA: $16,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCHICO FEMINIST WOMENS HEALTH CENTER dba WOMENS HEALTH SPECIALISTS: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCHANGING WOMAN INITIATIVE: $14,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetNEW VOICES PITTSBURGH INC: $14,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWomen With A Vision: $13,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTHE AFIYA CENTER: $11,500 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA FREE INCORPORATED: $11,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetABORTION RIGHTS FUND OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetAbortion Action Missouri: $10,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetWomen's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCONSUMER HEALTH FIRST: $9,500 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetHARM REDUCTION OHIO: $8,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetPVBLIC FOUNDATION INC: $7,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $7,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetOSHUN FAMILY CENTER: $7,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetEMERGENCY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE INC: $5,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN LOUISVILLE SECTION: $5,500 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTBA FUND INC: $5,500 over 1y, 0.9% 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.

Hopewell FundNational Network of A…Ms Foundation for Wom…Amalgamated Charitabl…Groundswell FundNational Women's Law …The Susan Thompson Bu…Rockefeller Philanthr…ImpactassetsincWomen Donors NetworkPlanned Parenthood Fe…The Argosy Foundation
Hopewell FundDC30.7× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 National Women's Health Network funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Women's Health Network. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 37 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on National Women's Health Network’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