Skip to content

· Public charity

Red Tent Fund

The Red Tent Fund is a nonprofit national abortion fund rooted in Jewish values and teachings that affirm the right to abortion for all.

$526k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
10
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $244k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $278k
$42,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FAMILY PLANNING ASSOC MED$100,000
TRUST WOMEN FDN INC$65,000
PARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE LLC$57,500
HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN LTD$55,000
CHOICES WOMENS MEDICAL CTR$45,000
CASCADE PROPERTY MGMT LLC$42,000
CARE FOR ALL INC$40,000
A PREFERRED WOMENS HEALTH CL$35,000
THE LILITH CLINIC SEATTLE$30,000
GRACE REPROD HEALTH SVCS$25,000
WOMENS HEALTH CTR MARYLAND$15,000
JACKRABBIT FAMILY MEDICINE$11,678
02The need
02

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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY24–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%JACKRABBIT FAMILY MEDICINE: $12k → 11%CHOICES WOMENS MEDICAL CTR: $45k → 13%GRACE REPROD HEALTH SVCS: $25k → 14%TRUST WOMEN FDN INC: $65k → 16%CARE FOR ALL INC: $40k → 17%A PREFERRED WOMENS HEALTH CL: $35k → 10%CASCADE PROPERTY MGMT LLC: $42k → 12%THE LILITH CLINIC SEATTLE: $30k → 9%HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN LTD: $55k → 12%FAMILY PLANNING ASSOC MED: $100k → 14%PARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE LLC: $58k → 11%WOMENS HEALTH CTR MARYLAND: $15k → 18%TRUST WOMEN FDN INC: $20k → 16%HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN LTD: $15k → 12%FAMILY PLANNING ASSOC MED: $50k → 14%PARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE LLC: $10k → 11%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.
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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$373k · 4 repeat orgs$244k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
8

Total granted

$373k
$244k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

25%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 53% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $244k went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • FP
    FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP LTD
    2× · 2024–2025 · $150k
  • TW
    Trust Women Foundation Inc
    2× · 2024–2025 · $85k · revenue 0%
  • TH
    THE HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN LTD
    2× · 2024–2025 · $70k

Funded once

  • CW
    CHOICES WOMEN'S MEDICAL CENTER INC
    one grant, 2025 · $45k
  • HF
    HEALTHY FUTURES COLORADO PLLC
    one grant, 2025 · $42k
  • CF
    Care for All Inc
    one grant, 2025 · $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
03the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 12 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/4
Grantees still filing
0/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP LTD: $150,000 · OtherFAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP LTDTHE HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN LTD: $70,000 · OtherTHE HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN LTDPARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE: $67,500 · OtherPARTNERS IN ABORTION CARECHOICES WOMEN'S MEDICAL CENTER INC: $45,000 · OtherCHOICES WOMEN'S MEDICAL CENTER INCHEALTHY FUTURES COLORADO PLLC: $42,000 · OtherHEALTHY FUTURES COLORADO PLLCA PREFERRED WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER: $35,000 · OtherA PREFERRED WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTERALL WOMEN'S CARE: $30,000 · OtherALL WOMEN'S CARE+1 more: $11,678 · OtherTrust Women Foundation Inc: $85,000 · HealthTrust Women Foundation IncCare for All Inc: $40,000 · HealthCare for All IncGRACE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES: $25,000 · HealthGRACE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERV…WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF MARYLAND INC: $15,000 · HealthWOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF MARYL…
Other$451,178Health$165,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTrust Women Foundation Inc: $85,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCare for All Inc: $40,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetGRACE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES: $25,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetWOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF MARYLAND INC: $15,000 over 1y, 1.6% 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.

  • Who funds Trust Women Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds Care for All Inc ↗
  • Who funds GRACE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF MARYLAND INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Red Tent Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Red Tent Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 Red Tent Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Red Tent Fund 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 12 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 Red Tent’s filings →

    More from the funding graph