· Public charity
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland Inc
To provide, promote and protect reproductive and sexual health through health services, education and advocacy.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k1 grant · $35k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $69k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTERS OF NEBRASKA | $808,580 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTERS OF IOWA | $259,000 |
| SANFORD COMMUNITY CENTER | $69,037 |
| UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA | $35,000 |
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 (FY17–22, $495k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 97% 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 74% of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 55% of the giving stays in MN; read by stated purpose it is 2% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +37% since the first grant, against -2% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTERS OF NEBRASKA9× · 2017–2025 · $3.4M · revenue +294% · 83% of their budget
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTERS OF IOWA9× · 2017–2025 · $2.0M · revenue +37% · 78% of their budget
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE HEARTLAND FOUNDATION2× · 2018–2022 · $512k · revenue +284% · 33% of their budget
Funded once
- PPPLANNED PARENTHOOD MINNESOTA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTAone grant, 2018 · $124k · revenue -2%
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, promote and protect reproductive and sexual health through health services, education and advocacy.
The purpose of the family planning council of iowa is to assure access to quality reproductive healthcare and family planning for all people.
Mission is to provide women facing an unplanned pregnancy with truthful medical information and education. we are faith-based with a mission to encourage, through education and outreach, the recognition of human life from the moment of…
We mobilize supporters of all parties to defend and increase access to family planning services and fact based, medically accurate sexuality education. we work to inspire and engage citizens to take up the cause of reproductive health and…
The mission of planned parenthood of the columbia willamette (ppcw) is to provide, promote and protect access to quality reproductive and sexual health care in oregon and southwest washington.
Dakota hope offers services that empower women and men to make choices about sexual health and pregnancy that will help them and their children to have a bright future. these services include pregnancy tests, ultrasound, and evidence-based…
To build and maintain financial support for planned parenthood north central states to advance and protect sexual and reproductive health care for all.
Empowering communities through specialized and inclusive reproductive health services.
The mission of planned parenthood of southwest and central florida, inc. is to provide affordable access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare and accurate health information through patient care, education, and advocacy.
To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.
To protect women's health and reproductive choice through advocacy in connecticut.
Turn fear into confidence by meeting the real needs of women and men and providing strength for life's tough choices.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Planned Parenthood Voters of Iowa and the most unlike its peers is Sanford Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 15 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 PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTERS OF NEBRASKA ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTERS OF IOWA ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE HEARTLAND FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SANFORD CENTER ↗
- Who funds GIRLS INCORPORATED OF SIOUX CITY ↗
- Who funds LUTHERAN SERVICES IN IOWA INC ↗
- Who funds YOUNG WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHARLES DREW HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD MINNESOTA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY YOUTH CONCEPTS ↗
- Who funds CRISIS INTERVENTION & ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN AND FAMILY URBAN MINISTRIES D/B/A CHILDREN AND FAMILY URBAN MOVEMENT ↗
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: Community Fdn of Greater Des Moines F/K/A Greater Des Moines Community Fdn · Chrysalis Foundation · United Way of Central Iowa · Prairie Meadows Race Track and Casino Inc · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Planned Parenthood of the Heartland 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.
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.