Skip to content
Power to Decide at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Power to Decide

POWER TO DECIDE envisions a world where everyone - no matter who they are or where they live - has control over their bodies and can decide if, when, and under what circumstances to get pregnant and have a child.

$591k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$419k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$3.5MScience & Tech$877kArts & Culture$486kEducation$359kCommunity Improvement$285kYouth Development$195kInternational$145kSocial Science$70kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $112k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
  • $250k+1 grant · $419k
$15,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$28M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILD TRENDS INC$418,972
MYHEALTHED INC$60,279
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO$20,691
I BE BLACK GIRL$16,000
COMPASSION OUTREACH OF AMERICA$15,000
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC$15,000
HEALTHY START COALITION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INC$15,000
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON$15,000
ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES$15,000
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 (FY19–25, $1.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 28% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%HEALTHY START COALITION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INC: $15k → 13%TEEN HEALTH MISSISSSIPPI: $160k → 23%CHILD TRENDS INC: $419k → 8%HEALTHY TEEN NETWORK INC: $70k → 19%HEALTHY START COALITION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INC: $10k → 13%CHILD TRENDS INC: $291k → 8%COMPASSION OUTREACH OF AMERICA: $21k → 23%CHILD TRENDS INC: $49k → 8%COMPASSION OUTREACH OF AMERICA: $15k → 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
MI
NY
CT
CA
CO
NE
KY
VA
MD
NM
NC
HI
OK
LA
MS
AL
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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.9M · 27 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +1% since the first grant, against -3% for those funded once.

27 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 18 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
14

Total granted

$4.9M
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+1%
-3%

Still filing today

56%
79%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesEducationCommunity ImprovementCivil RightsArts & CultureOther
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

  • CT
    CHILD TRENDS INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $759k · revenue +7%
  • AI
    APPALSHOP INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $486k · revenue +45%
  • KH
    Kentucky Health Justice Network Inc
    4× · 2019–2022 · $261k · revenue +74%

Funded once

  • N
    NOVELLY
    one grant, 2019 · $195k · revenue -97%
  • TH
    TEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI
    one grant, 2019 · $160k · revenue -3%
  • IR
    International Rescue Committee INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $145k · revenue +67%
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
Intrahealth International Inc

Our mission is to improve the performance of health workers and strengthen the systems in which they work.

Health
2
CommonHealth Action

CommonHealth ACTION develops people and organizations to produce health through equitable policies, programs, and practices.

Health
3
Ibis Reproductive Health Inc

Ibis reproductive health drives change through bold, rigorous research and principled partnerships that advance sexual and reproductive autonomy, choices and health worldwide.

Health
4
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
5
Arizona Family Health Partnership

To make sexual and reproductive healthcare accessible to everyone

—
6
University Health Inc

Primary functions are the coordination and delivery of health care resources and services, health care education for the hospital service area, long range analysis of health care needs and development of programs, and arranging for…

—
7
Gender Ideal Inc dba Reproductive & Maternal Health Com

Gender IDEAL launched the Reproductive & Maternal Health Compass. RMH Compass works to support and protect reproductive and maternal health (RMH) benefits for all workers in the U.S. by engaging with employers to assess and expand their…

Civil Rights
8
The Birth Center

The birth center dba lifecycle wellness and birth center is an independent non-profit organization and free-standing, out-of-hospital birth center. our team of midwives and nurse-practitioners provide empowering gynecology and…

—
9
HealthImpact

To shape health care through workforce strategy, stakeholder convening, and policy advocacy.

Health
10
Midwives College of Utah

Educate and train midwives to provide safe, professional, affordable and personal maternity and general health care.

Education
11
University Associates in Obstetrics and Gynecology University Faculty Pract ice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
12
National Committee for Quality Assurance

Our mission: to improve the quality of health care.our vision: better health care. better choices. better health.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Child Trends Inc; the most unlike its peers is International Rescue Committee 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

29 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. 29 of the 41 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/29
Grantees still filing
14/29
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: $309,684 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADOASK BOINK INC: $276,554 · OtherASK BOINK INCSENTIENT RESEARCH: $254,937 · OtherSENTIENT RESEARCHWESTAT CORP: $229,735 · OtherWESTAT CORPTWO X TWO: $205,000 · OtherTWO X TWONOVELLY: $195,000 · OtherNOVELLYESSENTIAL ACCESS HEALTH: $134,922 · OtherESSENTIAL ACCESS HEALTHGUSH PRODUCTIONS LLC: $85,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $80,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $75,098 · Other+11 more: $373,460 · Other+11 moreMY HEALTH ED INC: $1,031,684 · HealthMY HEALTH ED INCKentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $261,384 · HealthKentucky Health Justice Networ…Washington State Pharmacy Foundation: $189,264 · HealthWashington State Pharmacy Foun…+4 more: $115,000 · Health+4 moreCHILD TRENDS INC: $759,413 · Human ServicesCHILD TRENDS INCTEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $159,818 · Human ServicesTEEN HEALTH MISSISS…HEALTHY TEEN NETWORK INC: $70,000 · Human ServicesHEALTHY TEEN NETWOR…COMPASSION OUTREACH OF AMERICA: $36,230 · Human Services+1 more: $25,000 · Human ServicesAPPALSHOP INC: $486,000 · Arts & CultureAPPALSHOP…CAPACITY BUILDERS INC: $284,604 · Community ImprovementMISSISSIPPI FIRST INC: $95,000 · Community ImprovementInternational Rescue Committee INC: $145,000 · InternationalOKAYSO: $65,000 · EducationFlorida Agricultural & Mechanical Univ Foundation Inc: $46,230 · EducationTuskegee University: $21,230 · EducationDILLARD UNIVERSITY: $10,000 · Education
Other$2,219,390Health$1,597,332Human Services$1,050,461Arts & Culture$486,000Community Improvement$379,604International$145,000Education$142,460

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 budgetMY HEALTH ED INC: $1,031,684 over 8y, 94% of budgetCHILD TRENDS INC: $759,413 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetAPPALSHOP INC: $486,000 over 6y, 4.4% of budgetCAPACITY BUILDERS INC: $284,604 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetKentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $261,384 over 4y, 12% of budgetWashington State Pharmacy Foundation: $189,264 over 2y, 64% of budgetTEEN HEALTH MISSISSIPPI: $159,818 over 1y, 10% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $145,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetESSENTIAL ACCESS HEALTH: $134,922 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetMISSISSIPPI FIRST INC: $95,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetHEALTHY TEEN NETWORK INC: $70,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetInstitute of Women & Ethnic Studies: $70,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetFlorida Agricultural & Mechanical Univ Foundation Inc: $46,230 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHONESTLY INC: $30,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetCARDEA SERVICES: $30,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN'S BIRTH AND WELLNESS CENTER INC: $30,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetHawaii Youth Services Network: $30,000 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetI BE BLACK GIRL: $26,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetASIAN HEALTH SERVICES: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHEALTHY START COALITION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTuskegee University: $21,230 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREUBEN V ANDERSON CENTER FOR JUSTICE: $21,230 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetUNITED WAY OF CENTRAL NEW YORK INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetDILLARD UNIVERSITY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

WK Kellogg FoundationThe David and Lucile …The Grove FoundationRockefeller Philanthr…The Robert Wood Johns…Annie E Casey Foundat…Silicon Valley Commun…Charities Aid Foundat…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
WK Kellogg FoundationMI17× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: WK Kellogg Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The Grove Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Power to Decide funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Power to Decide. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 70%
  • Healthy Teen Network Inc: 70% of income from government
  • Child Trends Inc: 50% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
2rely 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 41 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 Power to Decide’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