· Public charity
Ipas
IPAS works globally to advance reproductive justice by expanding access to abortion and contraception.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $21,700 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $9,731,555 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $9,709,855 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CAROLINA ABORTION FUND | $15,000 |
| SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE INC) | $6,700 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 82% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Grants abroad, by region — $9.4M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 6 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: HOME ALLOCATION AND SI STRENGTHENING ABORTION ECOSYSTEM IN INDIA AND R&E SUPPORT · IMPROVED AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY TO QUALITY SRH SERVICES · TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY FOR VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT, LEADING TO IMPROVED PREPAREDNESS AND ADAPTIVE MEASURES IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Stated purpose: IMPROVE ACCESS TO SRHR INFORMATION & CAC SERVICES IN KINSHASA · BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM FOR SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS IN BURUNDI · INCREASE THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF GOVERNMENTAL AND JUDICIAL DECISION MAKERS ON SRHR AND GBV, ENSURING IMPROVED ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES AND THE FREE EXERCISE OF SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.
Stated purpose: THE PROJECT CONTINUES THE INTERVENTION ACTIVITIES OF DEEPENING UNDERSTANDING AND ACTION ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND STRENGTHENING AND GUARANTEEING ACCESS TO LEGAL ABORTION IN ARGENTINA. IT BUILDS ON PREVIOUS COLLABORATIVE WORK CARRIED OUT BY IPAS, CEDES, AND REDAAS. · TO MEET THE UNMET DEMAND FOR MEDICAL PERSONNEL IN THE PRACTICE OF IVE/ILE, THROUGH THEIR TRAINING PROVIDED BY THE CIGESAR FOUNDATION. · TO GUARANTEE WOMEN, GIRLS, ADOLESCENTS, AND YOUNG PEOPLE ACCESS TO SAFE AND SUPPORTED ABORTIONS WITHIN THE FORMAL HEALTH SYSTEM OR THROUGH SELF-MANAGED CARE, BY PROVIDING TELEPHONE INFORMATION AND IN-PERSON SUPPORT TO FACILITATE THE ABORTION PROCESS.
Stated purpose: INCREASE AWARENESS AMONG YOUTH OF GBV AND SRHR · TRAIN HEALTH WORKERS AND INCREASE AWARENESS · AN INTERVENTION FOCUSED ON RAISING AWARENESS AMONG ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS VIA SOCIAL MEDIAREGARDING THEIR SEXUALITY AND THE CORRECT USE OF CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS, WHILE PROMOTING AN ENVIRONMENT THAT FACILITATES ACCESS TO THESE METHODS AND STRENGTHENING NETWORKS FOR THE SAFE SUPPORT OF MIGRANT WOMEN.
Stated purpose: PROGRAM FOR ORGANIZING AND ADVOCATING VILLAGE POLICIES TO STRENGTHEN WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND PREVENTION OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE IN THE POST DISASTER DISTRICT OF DONGGALA AND SIGI DISTRICT CENTRAL SULAWESI. · FOR WOMEN AND ADOLESCENT GIRLS TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO ACCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND LAWS IN INDONESIA · TO STRENGTHEN THE RESILIENCE OF THE HEALTH SYSTEM, SRHR SERVICES, AND GBSV SERVICES
Stated purpose: STRENGTHEN SKILLS OF ABORTION ACCOMPANIMENT WORKERS FOR WOMEN NEEDING ADVANCED ABORTION CARE, AND DISSEMINATE NOM-046 STANDARDS SO WOMEN CAN ACCESS INFORMATION ON THEIR SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND KNOW WHERE TO SEEK HELP IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED. · ENSURE ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS AND SAFE ABORTION SERVICES (IVE/ILE) FOR SECONDARY AND HIGH SCHOOL ADOLESCENTS IN SANTA CRUZ XOXOCOTLN, OAXACA. · PROVIDING ACCESS TO SAFE, LEGAL ABORTION PROCEDURES THROUGH THE ACCOMPANIMENT MODEL OF FONDO MARIA IN MEXICO.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your 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.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Health Access Fund works to protect the fundamental right of all people to choose and access quality,dignified and affordable reproductive health care.
Catalyst Global (formerly known as WCG Cares) is an international non-profit organization committed to increasing access to innovative, high-quality, affordable sexual and reproductive health products and services to facilitate the vibrant…
The DC Abortion Fund helps pay for the abortion care of anyone living in or traveling to the DC Metro region, without restrictions or requirements. DC is a vital access point for the entire East Coast,
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…
Planned Parenthood Northern California generates healthier communities through the delivery of quality sexual and reproductive health care services.
The FWHC, which is located in Atlanta, Georgia, provides accessible gynecological health care to all who need it without judgement. As innovative health care leaders, we work collaboratively in the community and nationally to promote…
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…
The Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire removes financial barriers for anyone receiving abortion care in or from New Hampshire through direct service funding and movement building guided by patient need.
Center for Intimacy Justice (CIJ) works to create equity and wellbeing in people's intimate lives. CIJ's first program is changing Big Tech platforms discriminatory suppression of womens sexual and reproductive health information online.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Neo Philanthropy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Guttmacher Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 9 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Guttmacher Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds National Women's Health Network ↗
- Who funds NEO Philanthropy Inc ↗
- Who funds SHARE EQUITY ↗
- Who funds CAROLINA ABORTION FUND ↗
- Who funds HESPERIAN HEALTH GUIDES ↗
- Who funds HOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Ipas funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.