Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Reproductive Freedom for All

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL's mission is to develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing legal abortion.

$1.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
9
States reached
$250k
Largest
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 FY20172024.

Civil Rights$693kPublic Benefit$530kHealth$204kScience & Tech$75kHuman Services$29k
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 11 grants below total $736,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,434,664 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $698,664 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $450k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$50,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$9.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISSOURIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM$250,000
DEMOCRACTIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN$100,000
ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS$100,000
NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM$50,000
PROGRESSIVE STATE LEADERS COMMITTEE$50,000
NEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM$50,000
NEW YORKERS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS INC$50,000
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION$50,000
PENNSYLVANIA FUND FOR CHANGE$20,000
COPPER SKY LLC$10,000
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR MARYLANDERS INC$6,000
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 (FY20–21, $42k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 69% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%NARAL Pro-Choice MO: $15k → 21%NARAL Pro-Choice NC: $8k → 11%NARAL Pro-Choice MO: $14k → 21%NARAL Pro-Choice NC: $5k → 11%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

WA
MN
WI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
OH
PA
CT
CA
NE
MO
VA
MD
AZ
NC
DC
TX

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.

46%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$702k · 13 repeat orgs$829k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +123% since the first grant, against +73% for the ones you funded once.

13 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
12

Total granted

$702k
$243k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+123%
+73%

Still filing today

77%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 20% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $586k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsArts & CultureHuman ServicesHealthOther

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

  • PW
    Pro-Choice Washington Foundation
    2× · 2020–2021 · $40k · revenue +232%
  • PM
    PRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FOUNDATION
    2× · 2020–2021 · $36k · revenue +26%
  • RE
    REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $32k · revenue +343%

Funded once

  • TR
    The Reimagination Lab Incgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $75k · revenue +321%
  • AB
    A BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC
    one grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue -45%
  • OF
    Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom PAC
    one grant, 2023 · $25k

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
MEN4CHOICE Advocacy

Mobile Male Allies in the Fight for Reproductive Freedoms

Civil Rights
2
Abortion Forward

Abortion forward is committed to developing and sustaining a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every ohioan the right to make personal decisions regarding a full range of reproductive choices, including legal…

3
Pro-Choice North Carolina

To support and protect, as a fundamental right and value, a woman's freedom to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices.

Health
4
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

5
Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights

Ballot issue political action committee in the State of Ohio to advocate for the passage of a constitutional amendment to protect reproductive rights.

6
Pro-Choice Minnesota

To develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee women the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices.

7
Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire

The Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire removes financial barriers for anyone receiving abortion care in or from New Hampshire through direct service funding and movement building guided by patient need.

Health
8
Naral Pro-Choice Maryland Inc

To develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive options, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing…

9
Abortion Action Missouri

Abortion Action Missouri envisions a world with stigma-free abortion access and reproductive freedom for all. Our mission is to foster and sustain a Midwest movement for control of our bodies, lives, and futures.

10
Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Inc

Our mission is to advocate for the right of all Kentuckians to exercise reproductive and religious freedom consistent with their beliefs. We use advocacy, education, and outreach to support access to reproductive health services, including…

11
Protect Women Ohio Action Inc

Protect Women Ohio Action is a Section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization and registered ballot committee in the State of Ohio engaged in advocacy activities related to the "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and…

12
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

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pro-Choice Virginia Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Reimagination Lab 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

22 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 22 of the 34 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
11/22
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — $250,000 · OtherDEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEEMissourians for Constitutional Freedom — $250,000 · OtherMissourians for Constitutional FreedomDEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION — $125,000 · OtherDEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATIONARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS — $100,000 · OtherARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESSWOMEN VOTE — $71,000 · OtherWOMEN VOTENEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM — $50,000 · OtherPROGRESSIVE STATE LEADERS COMMITTEE INC — $50,000 · Other+15 more — $241,421 · Other+15 moreNEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc — $50,000 · Civil RightsNEO Philanthropy …NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM — $50,000 · Civil RightsNEBRASKANS FOR RE…Pro-Choice Washington Foundation — $39,513 · Civil RightsPro-Choice Washin…REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC — $31,729 · Civil RightsREPRODUCTIVE EQUI…A BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC — $25,000 · Civil RightsA BETTER WISCONSI…ABORTION FORWARD ALLIANCE — $20,975 · Civil RightsABORTION FORWARD …PRO CHOICE VIRGINIA — $20,000 · Civil RightsPRO CHOICE VIRGIN…The Reimagination Lab Inc — $75,000 · Arts & CultureNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc — $15,427 · Arts & CultureAbortion Action Missouri Foundation — $29,108 · Human ServicesPRO-CHOICE NC FOUNDATION — $13,121 · Human ServicesPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION — $23,981 · Health
Other$1,137,421Civil Rights$237,217Arts & Culture$90,427Human Services$42,229Health$23,981

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetMissourians for Constitutional Freedom — $250,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetNEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM — $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc — $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPROGRESSIVE STATE LEADERS COMMITTEE INC — $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM — $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPro-Choice Washington Foundation — $39,513 over 2y, 8.3% of budgetPRO-CHOICE MINNESOTA FOUNDATION — $36,125 over 2y, 9.1% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC — $31,729 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetAbortion Action Missouri Foundation — $29,108 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetPRO-CHOICE OREGON FOUNDATION — $28,301 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetA BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC — $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetOhioans for Reproductive Freedom PAC — $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION — $23,981 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW INC — $21,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetABORTION FORWARD ALLIANCE — $20,975 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetPRO CHOICE VIRGINIA — $20,000 over 1y, 9.6% of budgetPRO-CHOICE CONNECTICUT FOUNDATION INC — $18,000 over 2y, 31% of budgetNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc — $15,427 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetPRO-CHOICE NC FOUNDATION — $13,121 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetFreedom in Reproduction Maryland Inc — $6,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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.

Reproductive Freedom for All FoundationDC34.8× affinity14 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Reproductive Freedom for All Foundation · Hopewell Fund · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Abortion Forward Alliance · Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · New Venture Fund · National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc · America Votes · Open Society Action Fund Inc · National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund Inc · North Fund

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 Reproductive Freedom for All 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 50%3%10%23%40%your share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    5get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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 34 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph