Skip to content
Ibis Reproductive Health Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Ibis Reproductive Health Inc

Ibis reproductive health drives change through bold, rigorous research and principled partnerships that advance sexual and reproductive autonomy, choices and health worldwide.

$1.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$280k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$3.0MHuman Services$68kInternational$67kCivil Rights$14k
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $1,107,995, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,221,741 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $113,746 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–50k6 grants · $161k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $667k
  • $250k+1 grant · $280k
$50,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
STANFORD UNIVERSITY$279,874
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH$209,136
ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH$174,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH$105,976
ABUZZ LLC$73,000
AFIYA CENTER$55,000
SISTER SONG INC$50,000
REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO$44,900
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO$35,000
NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS$30,000
MAKING SPACE LLC$25,000
MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE$15,709
EUKI INC$10,400
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 (FY17–25, $346k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%AFIYA CENTER: $55k → 14%SISTERSONG WOMEN OF COLOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE COLLECTIVE: $59k → 13%NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY BOARD: $100k → 22%SISTER SONG INC: $50k → 13%NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY BOARD: $40k → 22%SISTERSONG: $14k → 13%NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY BOARD: $28k → 22%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
NY
MA
SD
IN
CA
KY
MD
NC
DC
GA
TX
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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 10 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
22

Total granted

$2.5M
$550k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%
+80%

Still filing today

80%
82%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 34% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $543k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationHuman ServicesCivil RightsInternationalArts & 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

  • NA
    NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY BOARD
    3× · 2017–2020 · $168k · revenue +6%
  • AC
    ABORTION CARE NETWORK
    4× · 2021–2024 · $127k · revenue +116%
  • SI
    SISTERSONG INC
    3× · 2018–2025 · $123k · revenue +525%

Funded once

  • A
    All-Optionsgraduated
    2× · 2021–2022 · $101k · revenue +110%
  • TJ
    THE JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITALgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $69k · revenue +58%
  • KH
    Kentucky Health Justice Network Incgraduated
    2× · 2021–2022 · $55k · revenue +36%
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
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.

—
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
Ibis Reproductive Health Inc

Ibis reproductive health drives change through bold, rigorous research and principled partnerships that advance sexual and reproductive autonomy, choices and health worldwide.

Health
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
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
6
University Associates in Obstetrics and Gynecology University Faculty Pract ice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
7
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
8
National Abortion Federation

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

—
9
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
10
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…

—
11
Femhealth Usa Inc

To provide convenient and professional abortion care and family planning so people can control the number and spacing of their children.

Health
12
Intermountain Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood of Montana empowers all people to make informed decisions and ensures the freedom to manage their own sexuality, and personal health by providing the highest quality confidential healthcare services, education, and…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Abortion Care Network; the most unlike its peers is Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants. 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

31 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. 31 of the 41 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
31/31
Grantees still filing
19/31
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH: $1,335,103 · OtherADVOCATES FOR YOUTHUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $380,631 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCOUNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $209,136 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF UTAH+12 more: $397,807 · Other+12 moreTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $586,896 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTE…University of Chicago: $86,000 · EducationUniversity of Chica…+4 more: $48,892 · Education+4 moreEuki Inc: $211,120 · HealthEuki IncABORTION CARE NETWORK: $126,840 · HealthABORTION CARE N…PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH: $105,976 · HealthPLANNED PARENTH…THE JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL: $69,259 · HealthTHE JOHNS HOPKI…Kentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $55,000 · HealthKentucky Health…+4 more: $25,354 · HealthNATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY BOARD: $168,000 · Human ServicesNATIVE AMER…SISTERSONG INC: $123,300 · Human ServicesSISTERSONG …All-Options: $100,728 · Human ServicesAll-OptionsTHE AFIYA CENTER: $55,000 · Human ServicesTHE AFIYA C…NEW VENTURE FUND: $80,000 · EnvironmentNATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC: $30,000 · EnvironmentIPAS: $66,628 · InternationalCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS: $12,000 · InternationalNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc: $16,000 · Arts & CultureNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $5,000 · Civil RightsSPARK REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE NOW: $5,000 · Civil Rights
Other$2,322,677Education$721,788Health$593,549Human Services$447,028Environment$110,000International$78,628Arts & Culture$16,000Civil Rights$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetADVOCATES FOR YOUTH: $1,335,103 over 9y, 5.4% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $586,896 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEuki Inc: $211,120 over 2y, 39% of budgetNATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY BOARD: $168,000 over 3y, 10% of budgetABORTION CARE NETWORK: $126,840 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetSISTERSONG INC: $123,300 over 3y, 3.4% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH: $105,976 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetAll-Options: $100,728 over 2y, 8.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $86,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $80,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL: $69,259 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetIPAS: $66,628 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetKentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $55,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetCHICAGO ABORTION FUND: $55,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetNATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER: $49,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE: $21,957 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc: $16,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetCAMBRIDGE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CONSULTANTS: $12,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetEmory University: $11,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: $10,435 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetACOG FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetESSENTIAL ACCESS HEALTH: $8,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE: $5,354 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetILLINOIS CAUCUS FOR ADOLESCENT HEALTH INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSPARK REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE NOW: $5,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HOWARD UNIVERSITY: $5,000 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.

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.

Hopewell FundThe Susan Thompson Bu…Amalgamated Charitabl…The Prentice Foundati…New Venture FundThe Irving Harris Fou…The Ford FoundationRockefeller Philanthr…National Institute fo…Ms Foundation for Wom…Silicon Valley Commun…The William & Flora H…
Hopewell FundDC25.5× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hopewell Fund · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Prentice Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · The Irving Harris Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation

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 Ibis Reproductive Health Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ibis Reproductive Health Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Northeastern University: 7% of income from government
  • The Trustees of Mount Holyoke College: 1% of income from government
  • The Johns Hopkins Hospital: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 Ibis Reproductive Health Inc?

Find your warmest path to Ibis Reproductive Health 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 41 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 Ibis Reproductive Health’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