Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

National Women's Law Center

To advance and protect women's legal rights.

$2.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
19
Grants FY2025still arriving
13
States reached
$560k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.

Philanthropy$2.3MCivil Rights$1.9MPublic Benefit$802kHealth$756kCrime & Legal$704kHuman Services$441kEmployment$381kCommunity Improvement$362kOther$0
02FY2025 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 19 grants below total $1,858,543 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $2,584,957 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $726,414 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–50k10 grants · $224k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $547k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
$31,270
Median grant
13
States reached
$106M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ACTION FUND$560,000
NEW VENTURE FUND$527,000
CLASP$147,273
JOBS WITH JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND$100,000
TRANSFORMATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTING$75,000
PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY ACTION$75,000
9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN$50,000
OPEN MARKETS INSTITUTE$50,000
TIDES CENTER$50,000
NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION$31,270
SISTER REACH INC$25,000
IPAS$25,000
JANE'S DUE PROCESS$25,000
WOMEN WITH A VISION INC$25,000
METANOIA$24,500
02The need
03

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 (FY19–25, $555k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 92% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence: $36k → 11%Child Care Law Center: $6k → 10%CA Child Care R&R Network: $6k → 10%YWCA Greater Los Angeles: $40k → 14%Child Care Resource Network: $6k → 13%NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION: $31k → 14%TRANSFORMATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTING: $75k → 12%Women's Right and Empowerment Network: $20k → 16%Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League Inc: $10k → 14%ABORTION ACTION MISSOURI FOUNDATION: $50k → 21%Arizona Coalition to End Sexual & Domestic Violence: $10k → 11%Tides Center: $35k → 10%Women's Right and Empowerment Network: $10k → 16%Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation: $25k → 21%Arizona Coalition to End Sexual & Domestic Violence: $10k → 11%Women's Right and Empowerment Network: $10k → 16%Take Creative Control Inc: $150k → 14%ABORTION ACTION MISSOURI FOUNDATION: $15k → 21%End Rape on Campus Inc: $10k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 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

ME
NH
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IA
OH
PA
NJ
RI
CA
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

56%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$3.1M · 27 repeat orgs$2.4M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +60% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.

27 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 17 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
69

Total granted

$3.1M
$2.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+60%
+22%

Still filing today

93%
93%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 67% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $419k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Civil RightsHuman ServicesHealthCommunity ImprovementEducationCrime & LegalOther

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

  • NW
    NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ACTION FUND
    2× · 2018–2025 · $585k · revenue ×21
  • JW
    Jobs with Justice Education Fund
    4× · 2022–2025 · $336k · revenue +60%
  • National Domestic Workers Alliance Inc
    2× · 2019–2021 · $300k · revenue +290%

Funded once

  • TC
    Take Creative Control Incgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $150k · revenue +108%
  • IO
    INSTITUTE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & SOCIAL JUSTICE
    one grant, 2022 · $140k · revenue -93%
  • FF
    FREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue -100%

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

04Your 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
Forward Together

Forward Together is a national reproductive justice organization that centers people, families, and communities who experience reproductive oppression. They prioritize queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color and utilize…

Health
3
Women Winning

To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.

Public Benefit
4
Women's Link Worldwide

A legal organization working to advance the rights of women, girls, and gender diverse people. We work on issues of reproductive rights, gender-based violence, climate, and racial justice in East Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the…

Civil Rights
5
Jobs with Justice San Francisco

A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…

Employment
6
Womn Act

To advance equity and justice for all women through advocacy and collaboration.

—
7
The Womxn Project

Through civic engagement, policy advancement and artivism, The Womxn Project takes action to secure reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+ rights and government transparency in Rhode Island.

Civil Rights
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
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
10
Pro-Choice Washington Foundation

The Pro-Choice Washington Foundation is our 501c3 focused on issue research, leadership development, and community and decision-maker education.

Civil Rights
11
Independent Women's Voice

Engage more individuals in legislative advocacy, educate them about the impact of public policies on their lives and our economy, and build support for policies that empower individuals by giving them greater freedom and autonomy.

Civil Rights
12
National Women's Law Center

To advance and protect women's legal rights. the center focuses on major policy areas of importance to women and their families including education, employment, family economic security, and health, with special attention given to the…

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum and the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Idaho Alliance Inc. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyCommunity FoundationsPolicy Research and AdvocacyWomen & Girls Leadership De…Affordable Housing Developm…Pregnancy Support ServicesHealth Access Advocacy and …Immigrant Worker SupportDomestic Violence ServicesChild Abuse Advocacy Servic…Independent K-12 SchoolsLgbtq+ Community Support
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 21 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%6%<5yr14%13%5–10yr19%27%10–20yr16%27%20–35yr13%24%35–55yr16%4%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%4%<5yr14%6%5–10yr19%59%10–20yr16%18%20–35yr13%11%35–55yr16%3%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
3%3/107
the rest of the field
13%
240,394/1,819,458

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.

04the grantee network

104 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. 104 of the 107 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
39
Early backer (in before they grew)
100/104
Grantees still filing
67/104
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

NEW VENTURE FUND — $2,075,554 · EnvironmentNEW VENTURE FUND+3 more — $47,000 · EnvironmentNATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ACTION FUND — $585,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER A…National Domestic Workers Alliance Inc — $300,000 · Civil RightsNational Domestic Workers All…STATE INNOVATION EXCHANGE — $182,500 · Civil RightsSTATE INNOVATION EXCHANGETHE OLE EDUCATION FUND — $163,500 · Civil RightsTHE OLE EDUCATION FUNDINSTITUTE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & SOCIAL JUSTICE — $140,000 · Civil RightsINSTITUTE OF INTELLECTUAL PRO…MOTHERING JUSTICE — $106,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM — $105,000 · Civil RightsWOMEN'S LAW PROJECT — $75,000 · Civil Rights+15 more — $417,500 · Civil Rights+15 more9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC — $184,000 · Other9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION …FREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS EDUCATION FUND — $100,000 · OtherFREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS …Memphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc — $70,000 · OtherHOPEWELL FUND — $200,000 · OtherHOPEWELL FUNDSISTERREACH — $63,000 · OtherCENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY — $147,273 · OtherCENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL …+34 more — $1,075,500 · Other+34 moreTake Creative Control Inc — $150,000 · Human ServicesTake Crea…Abortion Action Missouri Foundation — $90,000 · Human ServicesAbortion …TIDES CENTER — $85,000 · Human ServicesTIDES CEN…TRANSFORMATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTING — $75,000 · Human ServicesTRANSFORM…Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Inc — $55,500 · Human ServicesArizona C…Alianza Nacional de Campesinas Inc — $50,000 · Human ServicesAlianza N…YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES — $40,000 · Human ServicesYOUNG WOM…WOMENS RIGHTS AND EMPOWERMENT NETWORK — $40,000 · Human ServicesWOMENS RI…NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION — $31,270 · Human ServicesMICHIGAN ORGANIZATION ON ADOLESCENT SEXUAL HEALTH — $25,000 · Human Services+7 more — $64,000 · Human Services+7 moreTrust Women Foundation Inc — $125,000 · HealthBLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS — $65,000 · HealthMABEL WADSWORTH WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR — $62,500 · HealthWomen With A Vision — $50,000 · HealthSHARE EQUITY — $25,000 · HealthWest Alabama Womens Center Inc — $25,000 · HealthCOLORADO ORGANIZATION FOR LATINA OPPORTUNITY AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS — $25,000 · HealthBIRTH CONTROL ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK — $25,000 · HealthBIRTH IN COLOR RVA FOUNDATION — $25,000 · HealthBLUE MOUNTAIN CLINIC INC — $25,000 · Health+3 more — $35,000 · HealthJobs with Justice Education Fund — $336,420 · EmploymentHealing to Action — $40,000 · EmploymentUnite Here Local 8 — $40,000 · EmploymentMETANOIA — $164,500 · Community ImprovementPARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY ACTION — $75,000 · Community ImprovementOhio Womens Alliance — $50,000 · Community ImprovementASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL — $32,000 · Community ImprovementNORTH MAIN STREET FUND — $17,000 · Community Improvement+2 more — $22,000 · Community Improvement
Environment$2,122,554Civil Rights$2,074,500Other$1,839,773Human Services$705,770Health$487,500Employment$416,420Community Improvement$360,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetNEW VENTURE FUND — $2,075,554 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ACTION FUND — $585,000 over 2y, 19% of budgetJobs with Justice Education Fund — $336,420 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetNational Domestic Workers Alliance Inc — $300,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetHOPEWELL FUND — $200,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC — $184,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetSTATE INNOVATION EXCHANGE — $182,500 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetMETANOIA — $164,500 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetTHE OLE EDUCATION FUND — $163,500 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetTake Creative Control Inc — $150,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetINSTITUTE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & SOCIAL JUSTICE — $140,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetTrust Women Foundation Inc — $125,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetMOTHERING JUSTICE — $106,000 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM — $105,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetFREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS EDUCATION FUND — $100,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetAbortion Action Missouri Foundation — $90,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetTIDES CENTER — $85,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY ACTION — $75,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetWOMEN'S LAW PROJECT — $75,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetTRANSFORMATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTING — $75,000 over 1y, 51% of budgetMemphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc — $70,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetBLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS — $65,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetSISTERREACH — $63,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetMABEL WADSWORTH WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR — $62,500 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION — $60,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetArizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Inc — $55,500 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetTBA FUND INC — $55,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetNEW VOICES PITTSBURGH INC — $50,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetCOLORADANS FOR PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM — $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetAlianza Nacional de Campesinas Inc — $50,000 over 1y, 63% of budgetOhio Womens Alliance — $50,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetRESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED INC — $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetFeminist Womens Health Center Inc — $50,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetPRICHARD COMMITTEE FOR ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE INC — $50,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetPARTNERSHIP FOR SOUTHERN EQUITY — $45,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID INC — $40,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHealing to Action — $40,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICES — $40,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetNEW MEXICO COALITION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT PROGRAMS — $40,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetUnited for Respect Education Fund — $40,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCOMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT INC — $40,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES — $40,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetJOBS WITH JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND — $40,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetEVERTHRIVE ILLINOIS — $40,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetLatino Community Fund Inc — $40,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetFORGE INC — $40,000 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetInterfaith Worker Justice — $40,000 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetWOMENS RIGHTS AND EMPOWERMENT NETWORK — $40,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budget
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.

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.

Hopewell FundNew Venture FundGroundswell FundThe Susan Thompson Bu…Ms Foundation for Wom…Amalgamated Charitabl…Rockefeller Philanthr…NEO Philanthropy IncPlanned Parenthood Fe…Tides FoundationThe Ford FoundationThe Overbrook Foundat…
Hopewell FundDC72.5× affinity38 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hopewell Fund · New Venture Fund · Groundswell Fund · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · Tides Foundation · The Ford Foundation · The Overbrook 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 Law Center 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 70%4%15%34%60%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 19%
  • The Education & Training Institute Inc — 19% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
7get no government money at all
19report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 107 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 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