How much did REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION reported 10 grants totaling $1,796,676 in its FY2024 IRS filing.

Where is REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION based?

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION is based in DC.

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION

Foundation Dossiers Mostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →

· Public charity

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION

To operate for the benefit of, and to perform the educational and charitable functions of reproductive freedom for all.

$1.8M

Granted FY2024

Grants

Communities

$1.0M

Largest

01What you fund

0174% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2024.

Philanthropy$1.2MCivil Rights$1.0MHuman Services$507kHealth$338kArts & Culture$301kEducation$295kPublic Benefit$225kEnvironment$10kOther$1.4M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

progressivebuildjournalismaccesspro-choicechoicesequitable

2020

covid supprtincreaseparticipationcivic engagementhistoricallyorganizingbuilding

2021

everymake personalprotectwoman'sabortionchoicessupports

2022

hopewellfieldachieveinnovativeurgewomensocial

2023

political admin

2024

political admin

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

$10k–50k5 grants · $77k
$50k–250k4 grants · $610k
$250k+1 grant · $1.0M

$100,000

Median grant

States reached

$46M

Total assets

Largest grants

HOPEWELL FUND$1,000,000
SISTER SONG INC (2)$200,000
PHILANTHROPY INC$200,000
AMALGAMATED CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$110,000
MISSOURIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM$100,000
LEADERSHIP CENTER FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL STUDIES$25,000
THE MOVEMENT COOPERATIVE$17,000
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN INSTITUTE$15,000
BIRTH IN COLOR RVA FOUNDATION$10,000
CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS$10,000

02The need

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 (FY18–24, $472k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15% — the area typically sits at 12%. 76% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — 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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$3.5M · 18 repeat orgs$1.7M to everyone else

18 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 15 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$3.5M

$1.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+97%

+212%

Still filing today

94%

84%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $477k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Civil RightsHuman ServicesArts & CultureHealthEducationPhilanthropyOther

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

Hopewell Fund
2× · 2022–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +59%
AI
American Independent Institute
2× · 2019–2020 · $535k · revenue +117097% · 27% of their budget
NP
NARAL Pro-Choice MA Foundation
4× · 2018–2021 · $224k · revenue +548%

Funded once

MM
Media Matters for Americagraduated
one grant, 2020 · $250k · revenue +90%
UU
Urge Unite For Reproductivegraduated
one grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue +46%
Planned Parenthood Federationgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue +38%

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.

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

—

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

Carolina Abortion Fund

The Carolina Abortion Fund supports individuals who have decided to have an abortion by providing financial, logistical, and emotional support.

Health

Naral Pro-Choice Ohio

Naral pro-choice ohio 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…

—

Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance

WRRAP's mission is to ensure that individuals from all walks of life are afforded the equal opportunity to gain access to safe and legal abortion services.

Health

Pro Choice Virginia

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

Civil Rights

Women Winning

We are changing the face of power by activating pro-choice campaign operatives, candidates, and elected officials who are committed to reproductive health, rights and justice, and working to protect the safety, dignity and bodily autonomy…

Public Benefit

Dc Abortion Fund

The DC Abortion Fund DCAF is one of the largest abortion funds in the US supporting abortion seekers from DC and across the country

Human Services

Planned Parenthood Votes Ct

To protect women's health and reproductive choice through advocacy in connecticut.

—

Pro-Choice Minnesota

Pro-choice minnesota fills a unique role as the political arm of the pro-choice movement in minnesota. since our founding over 50 years ago, we have developed the expertise to achieve electoral successes as a means to an end: changing…

—

New River Abortion Access Fund

New river abortion access fund builds power and provides direct financial and practical support to southwest virginians and appalachians seeking abortion care. we dedicated to ensuring that all people have the autonomy and resources to…

Civil Rights

Planned Parenthood Votes Ri

To protect women's health and reproductive choice through advocacy in Rhode Island.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Equity Now Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Tides Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 21 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%1/43

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,522

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

40 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

38/40

Grantees still filing

33/40

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$1,585,110Philanthropy$1,160,000Civil Rights$1,045,846Human Services$507,201Health$337,984Arts & Culture$300,593Education$295,000

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.

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.

Hopewell FundDC43.7× affinity19 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hopewell Fund · Reproductive Freedom for All · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · New Venture Fund · Planned Parenthood Federation Of · Naral Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation · National Institute for Reproductive · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · National Women's Law Center · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Groundswell 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 organisation REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: NARAL Pro-Choice CT Foundation.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

low risk

6 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 061400165 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on NARAL Pro-Choice CT Foundation, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 89% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Reproductive Freedom for All Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Reproductive Freedom for All Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

40 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Reproductive Freedom for All Foundation?

More from the funding graph

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

40 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Reproductive Freedom for All Foundation?

More from the funding graph