Skip to content
The Creatura Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Creatura Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$120k
Granted FY2024still arriving
23
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$26k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Health$62kEducation$36kPhilanthropy$28kCivil Rights$7kHuman Services$3kRecreation & Sports$2kEnvironment$1kCrime & Legal$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k20 grants · $59k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $62k
$2,360
Median grant
8
States reached
$2.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEO PHILANTHROPY INC$25,980
Individual grant recipient$25,095
PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH$10,450
Individual grant recipient$9,717
Individual grant recipient$7,813
PPGNY$5,225
BARNARD COLLEGE$5,225
MedicalStudents for Choice$5,082
Center for Reproductive Rights$5,080
PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH$4,051
M A Hotline$2,551
BARNARD COLLEGE$2,360
Riverside Park Conservancy$1,161
COMPASSION AND CHOICES$1,161
Pregnancy Justice$1,161
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%MedicalStudents for Choice: $5k → 22%Social Good Fund: $972 → 9%M A Hotline: $3k → 10%PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: $25k → 9%NEO PHILANTHROPY INC: $26k → 17%PPGNY: $5k → 20%National Women's Health Network: $5k → 14%National Network of Abortion Funds: $1k → 8%Sistergood: $1k → 9%COMPASSION AND CHOICES: $1k → 7%Meadow Reproductive Health: $972 → 6%National Abortion Federation: $972 → 6%PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: $10k → 9%Pregnancy Justice: $1k → 17%NATIONAL WOMENS LAW CENTER: $1k → 14%Women's Health Access Matters: $1k → 9%COMPASSION AND CHOICES: $1k → 7%PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: $4k → 9%NEO PHILANTHROPY INC: $1k → 17%PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: $3k → 9%Riverside Park Conservancy: $1k → 17%Center for Reproductive Rights: $5k → 17%Central Park Conservancy: $1k → 17%BARNARD COLLEGE: $13k → 17%BARNARD COLLEGE: $12k → 17%BARNARD COLLEGE: $5k → 17%BARNARD COLLEGE: $3k → 17%BARNARD COLLEGE: $2k → 17%The Act Group: $25k → 17%The Act Group: $8k → 17%Abortion Positivity Project: $1k → 17%REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACCESS PROJECT: $5k → 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

NY
OR
PA
CT
CA
CO
VA
MD
DC
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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$106k · 4 repeat orgs$81k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +1% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
3

Total granted

$106k
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+1%
0%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 41% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
Civil RightsHealthEducationEnvironmentPublic BenefitRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • PF
    Physicians For Reproductive Health
    2× · 2023–2024 · $42k · revenue -41%
  • BARNARD COLLEGE
    3× · 2022–2024 · $35k · revenue -3%
  • NEO Philanthropy Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $27k · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • RH
    REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACCESS PROJECT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue +69%
  • NW
    National Women's Health Network
    one grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue 0%
  • NW
    NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
    one grant, 2023 · $1k · revenue -15%
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
The Population Council Inc

We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…

International
2
Women's Law Project

Women's law project creates a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women throughout their lives. to this end, we engage in high-impact litigation, advocacy, and education. the core values of women's law…

Civil Rights
3
National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund Inc

The national institute for reproductive health action fund conducts non-partisan issue advocacy and electoral engagement to advance reproductive health, rights, and justice in states and cities across the country. nirh action fund builds…

—
4
National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc

National institute for reproductive health, inc. works to protect and advance equitable access to reproductive health care by building power at the state and local level. using an approach that is rooted in partnerships with state and…

Civil Rights
5
Power to Decide

Power to decide envisions a world where everyone - no matter who they are or where they live - has control over their bodies and can decide if, when, and under what circumstances to get pregnant and have a child. its mission is to advance…

Human Services
6
Guttmacher Institute Inc

The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.

—
7
Womens Health Project Inc

The emma goldman clinic is a not-for-profit independent organization founded in 1973 by a group of women driven by feminist ideals. we exist to empower women and men in all life stages through informed decision making, client rights…

—
8
Gynuity Health Projects Inc

Gynuity health projects works to develop and advocate for the use of scientific, clinical and programmatic evidence in reproductive and maternal health, assuring that each individual benefits from the fruits of medical science and…

Health
9
Engenderhealth Inc

Engenderhealth envisions a gender-equal world where all people have the agency, resources, and opportunities to live healthy lives.(see schedule o)

International
10
National Abortion Federation Inc

The mission of the national abortion federation, inc. (naf) is to unite, represent, serve, and support abortion providers in delivering patient-centered, evidence-based care.

Health
11
Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood Inc

Upper hudson planned parenthood is a community-based non-profit organization providing advocacy, education and reproductive health care services in the capital region of new york state since 1934.

Health
12
Gender Ideal Inc dba Reproductive & Maternal Health Com

Gender IDEAL launched the Reproductive & Maternal Health Compass. RMH Compass works to support and protect reproductive and maternal health (RMH) benefits for all workers in the U.S. by engaging with employers to assess and expand their…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Health Access Project Inc; the most unlike its peers is Sistergood 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

16 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. 16 of the 23 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
7/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $32,908 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $9,717 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPPGNY: $5,225 · OtherPPGNYM A Hotline: $2,551 · Other+4 more: $4,086 · Other+4 morePhysicians For Reproductive Health: $41,552 · Civil RightsPhysicians For Reproductive He…THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $5,080 · Civil RightsTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RI…COMPASSION & CHOICES: $2,161 · Civil Rights+1 more: $1,161 · Civil RightsBARNARD COLLEGE: $34,827 · EducationBARNARD COLLEGE+2 more: $1,972 · Education+2 moreNEO Philanthropy Inc: $26,980 · Public BenefitNEO Philanthropy…MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE: $5,082 · HealthMEDICAL S…REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACCESS PROJECT INC: $5,000 · HealthREPRODUCT…National Women's Health Network: $5,000 · HealthNational …GRACE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES: $972 · HealthGRACE REP…RIVERSIDE PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $1,161 · EnvironmentNATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC: $1,015 · EnvironmentCENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $1,161 · Recreation & Sports
Other$54,487Civil Rights$49,954Education$36,799Public Benefit$26,980Health$16,054Environment$2,176Recreation & Sports$1,161

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPhysicians For Reproductive Health: $41,552 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetBARNARD COLLEGE: $34,827 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $26,980 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE: $5,082 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $5,080 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACCESS PROJECT INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNational Women's Health Network: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMPASSION & CHOICES: $2,161 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPREGNANCY JUSTICE INC: $1,161 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRIVERSIDE PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $1,161 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY INC: $1,161 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC: $1,015 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSISTERGOOD INC: $1,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetGRACE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES: $972 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $972 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get 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.

    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 23 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Creatura’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