Skip to content
The Brigid Alliance Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Brigid Alliance Inc

Alleviating constraints on individuals who must travel for safe and appropriate family planning services, by providing assistance with transportation, accommodation, meals, childcare, and emotional support.

$5.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Health$528kCivil Rights$375kEnvironment$150kHuman Services$40k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $1,145,250, the rows itemized in this filing. The $5,542,470 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,397,220 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

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $1.1M
$100,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FOXGLOVE$200,000
FEMINIST CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE LIBERATION$200,000
VALLEY ABORTION GROUP$200,000
WOMENS EMERGENCY NETWORK$100,000
LOUISIANA ABORTION FUND$100,000
FUND TEXAS CHOICE$100,000
JANES DUE PROCESS$100,000
FLORIDA ACCESS NETWORK$75,000
TAMPA BAY ABORTION FUND$50,000
NANCY DAVIS FOUNDATION$10,250
REPRO TLC LEARNERS FUND$10,000
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 (FY25–25, $200k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FOXGLOVE: $200k → 17%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

IL
OR
SD
OH
CA
CO
KY
MD
AZ
NM
AR
NC
DC
LA
GA
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.

16%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$365k · 3 repeat orgs$1.9M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -12% since the first grant, against -15% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
22

Total granted

$365k
$953k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-12%
-15%

Still filing today

100%
82%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 20% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $920k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24’25
HealthEnvironmentCivil RightsHuman ServicesArts & 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

  • JANE'S DUE PROCESS INC
    2× · 2023–2025 · $200k · revenue -12%
  • FA
    FLORIDA ACCESS NETWORK
    2× · 2023–2025 · $95k · revenue -17%
  • TF
    TBA FUND INC
    2× · 2023–2025 · $70k · revenue +56%

Funded once

  • SE
    SHARE EQUITY
    one grant, 2023 · $120k · revenue -23%
  • IW
    INDIGENOUS WOMEN RISING INDIGEOUS WOMEN RISING
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue -34%
  • Elevated Access Incgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $100k · revenue +47%
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
Abortion Access Fund Incorporated

To facilitate with women who need help financially to help pay for their abortion, whether abortion is needed for emotional, maternal or fetal health. To help medical facilities who perform abortions open and stay open.

Health
2
National Network of Abortion Funds

Texas Equal Access Fund provides funding to low-income people in the northern region of Texas who are seeking abortion and cannot afford it, while simultaneously working to end barriers to abortion access through community education and…

Environment
3
New Jersey Abortion Access Fund

The New Jersey Abortion Access Fund advances abortion access and bodily autonomy by funding abortions for people traveling to, from, and within New Jersey.

Philanthropy
4
Dc Abortion Fund

The DC Abortion Fund helps pay for the abortion care of anyone living in or traveling to the DC Metro region, without restrictions or requirements. DC is a vital access point for the entire East Coast,

Human Services
5
Clinic Access Support Network

Clinic Access Support Network (CASN) provides transportation, accommodations, childcare assistance, and compassionate care to Houstonians seeking abortion services. During this year, the organization paused coordination of direct services.

Environment
6
Health Access Fund

Health Access Fund works to protect the fundamental right of all people to choose and access quality,dignified and affordable reproductive health care.

Health
7
The Nebraska Abortion & Reproductive Justice Fund

Our mission at NEAR is to remove barriers on every level for Nebraskans seeking abortion access. We envision a world in which all pregnant people can plan their families as they see fit which includes equitable access to abortion care.

—
8
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
9
Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts Inc

The organization provides direct financial assistance to Individuals seeking abortions.

Civil Rights
10
First State Abortion Fund

The First State Abortion Fund is a local, volunteer-powered program rooted in a reproductive justice framework, with the mission of breaking down financial barriers and increasing abortion access in Delaware. Our fund provides financial…

Health
11
Chicago Abortion Fund

To advance reproductive autonomy and justice for everyone by providing financial, logistical, and emotional support to people seeking abortion services and by building collective power and fostering partnerships for political and cultural…

—
12
Abortion Freedom Fund

We give financial assistance to values-aligned partners who provide abortion pills by mail.

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Access Reproductive Care - Southeast; the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Women Rising Indigeous Women Rising. 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

27 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. 27 of the 32 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
27/27
Grantees still filing
11/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Feminist Womens Health Center Inc: $200,000 · OtherFeminist Womens Health Cent…INDIGENOUS WOMEN RISING INDIGEOUS WOMEN RISING: $100,000 · OtherINDIGENOUS WOMEN RISING IND…WOMENS EMERGENCY NETWORK INC: $100,000 · OtherWOMENS EMERGENCY NETWORK IN…EDEN SURGICAL CENTER: $42,750 · OtherEDEN SURGICAL CENTERIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPRO-CHOICE ARIZONA ACTION FUND: $20,000 · OtherPARTNERS IN ABORTION CARE: $20,000 · OtherACCESS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE: $20,000 · Other+1 more: $10,250 · OtherNATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC: $200,000 · EnvironmentNATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTIO…FLORIDA ACCESS NETWORK: $95,000 · EnvironmentFLORIDA ACCESS NETWORKACCESS REPRODUCTIVE CARE - SOUTHEAST: $75,000 · EnvironmentACCESS REPRODUCTIVE CARE - …NORTHWEST ABORTION ACCESS FUND: $75,000 · EnvironmentNORTHWEST ABORTION ACCESS F…FUND TEXAS CHOICE: $75,000 · EnvironmentFUND TEXAS CHOICELOUISIANA ABORTION FUND: $20,000 · EnvironmentJANE'S DUE PROCESS INC: $200,000 · Civil RightsJANE'S DUE PROCESS INCElevated Access Inc: $100,000 · Civil RightsElevated Access IncMIDWEST ACCESS COALITION: $75,000 · Civil RightsMIDWEST ACCESS COALITIONTBA FUND INC: $70,000 · Civil RightsTBA FUND INCARKANSAS ABORTION SUPPORT NETWORK: $20,000 · Civil RightsCOBALT FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Civil RightsTHE BRIGID ALLIANCE INC: $200,000 · Human ServicesTHE BRIGID A…JUSTICE THROUGH EMPOWERMENT NETWORK SOUTH DAKOTA FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Human ServicesJUSTICE THRO…FAITH ROOTS REPRODUCTIVE ACTION: $20,000 · Human ServicesFAITH ROOTS …SHARE EQUITY: $120,000 · HealthSHARE EQUIT…ABORTION FUND OF MARYLAND INC: $20,000 · HealthABORTION FU…Kentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $20,000 · HealthKentucky He…CAROLINA ABORTION FUND: $20,000 · HealthCAROLINA AB…Abortion Fund of Ohio: $20,000 · HealthAbortion Fu…COLORADO DOULA PROJECT: $20,000 · HealthCOLORADO DO…Repro TLC: $10,000 · HealthCENTER OF SOUTHWEST CULTURE INC: $200,000 · Arts & CultureCENTER OF …
Other$543,000Environment$540,000Civil Rights$485,000Human Services$240,000Health$230,000Arts & Culture$200,000

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 budgetTHE BRIGID ALLIANCE INC: $200,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetNATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC: $200,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetJANE'S DUE PROCESS INC: $200,000 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetSHARE EQUITY: $120,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetINDIGENOUS WOMEN RISING INDIGEOUS WOMEN RISING: $100,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetWOMENS EMERGENCY NETWORK INC: $100,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetElevated Access Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 7.8% of budgetFLORIDA ACCESS NETWORK: $95,000 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetMIDWEST ACCESS COALITION: $75,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetACCESS REPRODUCTIVE CARE - SOUTHEAST: $75,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetNORTHWEST ABORTION ACCESS FUND: $75,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetFUND TEXAS CHOICE: $75,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetTBA FUND INC: $70,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetLOUISIANA ABORTION FUND: $20,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetJUSTICE THROUGH EMPOWERMENT NETWORK SOUTH DAKOTA FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetABORTION FUND OF MARYLAND INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetFAITH ROOTS REPRODUCTIVE ACTION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetKentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCAROLINA ABORTION FUND: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetARKANSAS ABORTION SUPPORT NETWORK: $20,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetAbortion Fund of Ohio: $20,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCOLORADO DOULA PROJECT: $20,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetCOBALT FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetACCESS REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

National Network of A…Hopewell FundAmalgamated Charitabl…Women Donors NetworkThe Prentice Foundati…Rockefeller Philanthr…Apiary for Practical …Tara Health FoundationThe Susan Thompson Bu…ImpactassetsincNew Venture FundAnderson-Rogers Found…
National Network of Abortion Funds IncOR39× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Network of Abortion Funds Inc · Hopewell Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Women Donors Network · The Prentice Foundation Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Apiary for Practical Support Inc · Tara Health Foundation · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Impactassetsinc · New Venture Fund · Anderson-Rogers Foundation Inc

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 The Brigid Alliance Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Brigid Alliance Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%3%6%10%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
    3get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Brigid Alliance Inc?

    Find your warmest path to The Brigid Alliance Inc 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 32 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 Brigid Alliance’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