Skip to content
Reproductive Freedom for All at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$1.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$250k
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 2024.

Civil Rights$693kPublic Benefit$530kHealth$204kScience & Tech$75kHuman Services$29k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $656,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,500,072 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $844,072 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

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $50k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $350k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$50,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISSOURIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM$250,000
ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS$100,000
DEM LEGIS CAMPAIGN$100,000
PROG STATE LEADERS COMMITTEE$50,000
NV BALLOT MEASURE CONTRIBUTION$50,000
DEM ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOC$50,000
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION$25,000
HIGHER HEIGHTS FOR AMERICA$15,000
COPPER SKY LLC$10,000
MD BALLOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION$6,000
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 (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 its 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
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
MN
WI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
OH
PA
CT
CA
NE
MO
VA
MD
AZ
NC
DC
TX
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.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 17 repeat orgs$540k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +123% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
17

Total granted

$1.6M
$419k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+123%
0%

Still filing today

71%
59%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $121k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Civil RightsArts & CultureHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • 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%
  • NP
    NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue 0%
  • NF
    NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
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
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

—
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
MEN4CHOICE Advocacy

Mobile Male Allies in the Fight for Reproductive Freedoms

Civil Rights
4
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
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
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
11
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…

Human Services
12
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…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pro-Choice Virginia Foundation; 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

23 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. 23 of the 38 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/23
Grantees still filing
13/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Missourians for Constitutional Freedom: $500,000 · OtherMissourians for Constitutional FreedomDEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: $350,000 · OtherDEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEEARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS: $200,000 · OtherARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESSDEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION: $150,000 · OtherDEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATIONPROGRESSIVE STATE LEADERS COMMITTEE INC: $100,000 · OtherPROGRESSIVE STATE LEADERS COMMITTEE INCWOMEN VOTE: $71,000 · Other+19 more: $407,421 · Other+19 moreNEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc: $50,000 · Civil RightsNEO Philanthr…NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $50,000 · Civil RightsNEBRASKANS FO…Pro-Choice Washington Foundation: $39,513 · Civil RightsPro-Choice Wa…REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC: $31,729 · Civil RightsREPRODUCTIVE …A BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC: $25,000 · Civil RightsA BETTER WISC…ABORTION FORWARD ALLIANCE: $20,975 · Civil RightsABORTION FORW…PRO CHOICE VIRGINIA: $20,000 · Civil RightsPRO CHOICE VI…Higher Heights for America: $15,000 · Civil RightsHigher Height…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$1,778,421Civil Rights$252,217Arts & Culture$90,427Human Services$42,229Health$23,981

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMissourians for Constitutional Freedom: $500,000 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetPROGRESSIVE STATE LEADERS COMMITTEE INC: $100,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNEVADANS 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 budgetOhioans for Reproductive Freedom PAC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetA BETTER WISCONSIN TOGETHER INC: $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
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.

Reproductive Freedom …Hopewell FundSixteen Thirty FundAbortion Forward Alli…Planned Parenthood Ac…The Susan Thompson Bu…New Venture FundNational Institute fo…America VotesOpen Society Action F…National Institute fo…North Fund
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

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 Reproductive Freedom for All funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Reproductive Freedom for All. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%3%10%23%40%funder's 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, 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 38 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 Reproductive Freedom for All’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