Loading…
Loading…
Washington, D.C. · Nonprofit
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL (Washington, D.C.) is funded by 173 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $26,977,352 in grants to it, the largest being THE SUSAN THOMPSON BUFFETT FOUNDATION ($11,327,632). 62 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL runs a healthier operating margin than three-quarters of the 2,461 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,461 human services nonprofits $10M–$100M, FY2024
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
95% of REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (21% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $106k → $360k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
7 of 173 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 5% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 173 funders by total. Association, not causation.
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL leans on a few funders — its largest provides 42% of grant income and the top three 73%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 59% · 2018 51% · 2019 16% · 2020 71% · 2021 33% · 2022 56% · 2023 28% · 2024 54% · 2025 43% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
22% of REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 36% give in more than one year at all.
Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year.
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL draws 95% of its grant income from funders outside Washington, D.C. — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 31 states in all.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first. Your 173 funders put you under-funded among the 400 organizations that share them.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
75% of spending goes to programs.
Operates in 41 states
Part of a family of 2 related entities
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2018–2024), and the filings of 173funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing