Skip to content
International Planned Parenthood Federation Western Hemisphere Region at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

International Planned Parenthood Federation Western Hemisphere Region

Ippfwhr (dba fos feminista) aims to improve the quality of life of individuals by campaigning for sexual and reproductive health and rights through advocacy and services, especially for poor and vulnerable people.

$18M
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$435k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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$4.3MCivil Rights$1.5MInternational$469kCommunity Improvement$72k
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $886,365, the rows itemized in this filing. The $18,476,441 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $17,590,076 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 · FY2024

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $451k
  • $250k+1 grant · $435k
$181,645
Median grant
3
States reached
$118M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ABORTION COALITION FOR TELEMEDICINE INC (ACT INC)$435,000
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS$181,645
PROFAMILIAS - PUERTO RICO$148,625
CENTER FOR MASCULINITIES AND SOCIAL JUS$121,095
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 (FY22–24, $916k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%EQUIMUNDO CENTER FOR MASCULINITIES AND SOCIAL JUST: $226k → 14%EQUIMUNDO CENTER FOR MASCULINITIES AND SOCIAL JUST: $134k → 14%CENTER FOR MASCULINITIES AND SOCIAL JUS: $121k → 14%ABORTION COALITION FOR TELEMEDICINE INC (ACT INC): $435k → 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.

Grants abroad, by region: $18M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 8 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

South America$9.1M · 51% · 52 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATING & SUPPORT

Central America and the Caribbean$2.9M · 16% · 18 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATING & SUPPORT

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$2.3M · 13% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATING & SUPPORT

Sub-Saharan Africa$1.3M · 8% · 19 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATING & SUPPORT

North America (Canada and Mexico)$1.0M · 6% · 9 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATING & SUPPORT

South Asia$538k · 3% · 7 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATING & SUPPORT

Middle East and North Africa$370k · 2% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATING & SUPPORT

East Asia and the Pacific$44k · 0% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: OPERATING & SUPPORT

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.6M · 7 repeat orgs$669k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +71% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
4

Total granted

$5.6M
$234k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+71%
+19%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $435k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthCivil RightsInternationalHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEmploymentOther
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

  • THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $823k · revenue +69%
  • WL
    Women's Link Worldwide
    5× · 2017–2021 · $650k · revenue +71%
  • EC
    EQUIMUNDO CENTER FOR MASCULINITIES AND SOCIAL JUS
    3× · 2022–2024 · $481k · revenue +120%

Funded once

  • EW
    ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USAINC
    one grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +6%
  • CR
    CREATING RESOURCES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND ACTION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $72k · revenue +19%
  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $46k · revenue +40%
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
International Center for Research On Women

The international center for research for women (icrw) is a global research institute, with a mission to advance rights and opportunities for women, girls, and structurally excluded populations with actionable evidence and solutions.

International
2
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
3
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
4
International Partnership for Microbicides Inc

To develop hiv prevention products and other sexual and reproductive health technologies for women, and to make them available and accessible where they are urgently needed.

—
5
International Network for the Reduction of Abortion Discrimination and Stigma

The International Network for the Reduction of Abortion Discrimination and Stigma (inroads) builds cross-movement collective power, provides flexible resources, and strengthens movements across the global abortion justice ecosystem to…

Civil Rights
6
Planned Parenthood Global Inc

To advance the planned parenthood mission internationally, including support for the provision and protection of sexual and reproductive health services and rights, and ensuring that all people have access to reproductive and sexual…

Health
7
Population Action International

Pai advances evidence, policies and programs to enable women, youth and at-risk communities to access sexual and reproductive health as core to health equity, climate resilience, economic well-being and gender equality.

Health
8
Women Winning

To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.

Public Benefit
9
Global Justice Center

Global justice center is a legal human rights organization that uses international law to achieve gender equality and dismantle systems of oppression.

Civil Rights
10
Equality Now Inc

To achieve legal and systematic change that addresses violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world.

International
11
World Pulse Voices

World Pulse is a global social impact network connecting women from 227 countries to accelerate social change. We provide a safe and supportive online space where women can speak for themselves, make powerful connections, and access the…

Human Services
12
Fos Feminista Fund

Fos feminista fund was formed exclusively for charitable purposes to support, foster, aid, and enhance access to contraception, responsible parenthood, reproductive health, and empowerment of women and shall aid and support the activities…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ipas; the most unlike its peers is Equimundo Center for Masculinities and Social Jus. 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

12 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FAMILIES PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF PUERTO RICO: $2,829,697 · OtherFAMILIES PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF PUERTO RICOTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $823,103 · Civil RightsTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIV…Women's Link Worldwide: $649,504 · Civil RightsWomen's Link WorldwideEQUIMUNDO CENTER FOR MASCULINITIES AND SOCIAL JUS: $480,916 · Human ServicesEQUIMUNDO CENTER…ABORTION COALITION FOR TELEMEDICINE INC: $435,000 · Human ServicesABORTION COALITI…EDUCATION AS A VACCINE: $260,968 · HealthEDUCATION…IBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC: $194,425 · HealthIBIS REPR…PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $46,250 · HealthPLANNED P…IPAS: $368,700 · InternationalENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USAINC: $100,000 · InternationalCREATING RESOURCES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND ACTION INC: $72,250 · Community ImprovementCHICAS PODEROSAS INC: $15,000 · Employment
Other$2,829,697Civil Rights$1,472,607Human Services$915,916Health$501,643International$468,700Community Improvement$72,250Employment$15,000

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 budgetFAMILIES PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF PUERTO RICO: $2,829,697 over 8y, 37% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $823,103 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetWomen's Link Worldwide: $649,504 over 5y, 7.4% of budgetEQUIMUNDO CENTER FOR MASCULINITIES AND SOCIAL JUS: $480,916 over 3y, 3.8% of budgetABORTION COALITION FOR TELEMEDICINE INC: $435,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetIPAS: $368,700 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetEDUCATION AS A VACCINE: $260,968 over 2y, 11% of budgetIBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC: $194,425 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USAINC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCREATING RESOURCES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND ACTION INC: $72,250 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $46,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAS PODEROSAS INC: $15,000 over 1y, 3.1% 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.

Wellspring Philanthro…Foundation to Promote…Hopewell FundThe Ford FoundationNational Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Wellspring Philanthropic Fund IncNY15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Hopewell Fund · The Ford Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 International Planned Parenthood Federation Western Hemisphere Region funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Planned Parenthood Federation Western Hemisphere Region. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 9%
  • Ibis Reproductive Health Inc: 9% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–25%
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 12 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on International Planned Parenthood Federation Western Hemisphere Region’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