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

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 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

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 19 grants below total $1,858,543, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,584,957 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $726,414 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 · 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
PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY ACTION$75,000
TRANSFORMATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTING$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

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 (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 its 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
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

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
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.

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +63% since the first grant, against +24% for those 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

+63%
+24%

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
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

  • NW
    NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER ACTION FUND
    2× · 2018–2025 · $585k · revenue ×21
  • National Domestic Workers Alliance Inc
    2× · 2019–2021 · $300k · revenue +290%
  • 9TO5 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $184k · revenue +22%

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 -94%
  • FF
    FREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue -100%
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
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
2
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

—
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
Womn Act

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

—
7
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
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
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…

—
11
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
12
The Women's Clinic of Columbus

Women's health clinic focusing on helping at-risk parents deal with issues related to prenancy and parenting.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; 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.
04the grantee network

104 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. 104 of the 107 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
40
Early backer (in before they grew)
100/104
Grantees still filing
64/104
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 · HealthBIRTH IN COLOR RVA FOUNDATION: $25,000 · HealthSHARE EQUITY: $25,000 · HealthBLUE MOUNTAIN CLINIC INC: $25,000 · HealthCOLORADO ORGANIZATION FOR LATINA OPPORTUNITY AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: $25,000 · HealthWest Alabama Womens Center Inc: $25,000 · HealthBIRTH CONTROL ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK: $25,000 · Health+3 more: $35,000 · HealthJobs with Justice Education Fund: $336,420 · EmploymentUnite Here Local 8: $40,000 · EmploymentHealing to Action: $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 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 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, 1.8% 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 budgetCENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY: $147,273 over 1y, 1.3% 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 budgetTRANSFORMATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTING: $75,000 over 1y, 51% of budgetWOMEN'S LAW PROJECT: $75,000 over 2y, 1.0% 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 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 budgetAlianza Nacional de Campesinas Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 63% of budgetCOLORADANS FOR PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetOhio Womens Alliance: $50,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetRESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetPARTNERSHIP FOR SOUTHERN EQUITY: $45,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID INC: $40,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetInterfaith Worker Justice: $40,000 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetCOMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT INC: $40,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetJOBS WITH JUSTICE EDUCATION FUND: $40,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetUnite Here Local 8: $40,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH: $40,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetFORGE INC: $40,000 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetLatino Community Fund Inc: $40,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetUnited for Respect Education Fund: $40,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetEVERTHRIVE ILLINOIS: $40,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetAsian Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project: $40,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetNEW MEXICO COALITION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT PROGRAMS: $40,000 over 1y, 0.8% 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 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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 70%4%15%34%60%funder's 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
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.

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 107 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on National Women's Law Center’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