Abortion Care Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261972058
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024191444
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,159,633
Expenses
$7,640,348
Assets
$9,323,156
Liabilities
$198,294

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIN GRANT (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NICOLE MADSEN (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIN GRANT (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $184,627 total reported compensation
  • NICOLE MADSEN (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $182,745 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER THIBODEAU (COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR): $150,272 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Abortion care network's (acn) unique role in the abortion care community is to support independent abortion care providers and the patients they serve. To do so, we provide direct programming, technical assistance and grants (continue on schedule o)directly to our member clinics, independent abortion clinics and their allies. Acn's mission is to build a sustainable future for abortion access by resourcing, connecting and celebrating independent abortion clinics and their allies.

What it reported doing in 2025

Abortion care network's unique role in the abortion care community is to support independent abortion care providers and the patients they serve. To do so, we provide direct programming, technical assistance and grants directly to our member clinics with an eye toward clinic sustainability, professional development, provider wellbeing and safety. Additionally, we engage and mobilize allies and the public and serve as a collective voice for independent clinics across the united states.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93%; rating input score 93; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $185K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $270K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 90 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 82 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.