Skip to content
Ipas at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Ipas

IPAS works globally to advance reproductive justice by expanding access to abortion and contraception.

$9.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2020 to 2025.

Health$129kInternational$58kPublic Benefit$25kCommunity Improvement$7k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $21,700, the rows itemized in this filing. The $9,731,555 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,709,855 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

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
$15,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$161M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAROLINA ABORTION FUND$15,000
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE INC)$6,700
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 82% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ABORTION FREEDOM PARTNERSHIP: $19k → 8%HESPERIAN HEALTH GUIDES: $14k → 10%SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE INC): $7k → 14%NEO PHILANTHROPY INC: $25k → 17%NWHN (PLAN C): $55k → 14%SHOUT LLC: $19k → 9%HOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE INC: $8k → 18%GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE: $58k → 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: $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.

South Asia$5.4M · 58% · 22 grants

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

Sub-Saharan Africa$2.5M · 26% · 51 grants

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.

South America$714k · 8% · 10 grants

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.

Central America and the Caribbean$404k · 4% · 10 grants

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.

East Asia and the Pacific$280k · 3% · 14 grants

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

North America (Canada and Mexico)$116k · 1% · 8 grants

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.

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 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
Health Access Fund

Health Access Fund works to protect the fundamental right of all people to choose and access quality,dignified and affordable reproductive health care.

Health
2
The Conversationalist
—
3
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…

—
4
Dc Abortion Fund

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,

Human Services
5
Feminist Womens Health Center Inc

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…

—
6
Catalyst Global

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…

International
7
Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project

Founded in 1991, the Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project (WRRAP) assists individuals of all ethnicities, sexual orientation, gender identities, socio-economic status, and cultural backgrounds who are financially unable to pay…

Health
8
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
9
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo Inc

Planned Parenthood Northern California generates healthier communities through the delivery of quality sexual and reproductive health care services.

Health
10
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
11
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
12
Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire

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.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Share Equity; 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.
04the grantee network

8 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. 8 of the 9 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

National Women's Health Network: $55,000 · HealthNational Women's Health NetworkSHARE EQUITY: $18,500 · HealthSHARE EQUITYCAROLINA ABORTION FUND: $15,000 · HealthCAROLINA ABORTION FUNDGuttmacher Institute Inc: $58,228 · OtherGuttmacher Institute IncTides Center: $18,500 · OtherTides CenterNEO Philanthropy Inc: $25,000 · Public BenefitNEO Philanth…HESPERIAN HEALTH GUIDES: $13,900 · InternationalHOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE INC: $8,000 · Civil RightsSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $6,700 · Environment
Health$88,500Other$76,728Public Benefit$25,000International$13,900Civil Rights$8,000Environment$6,700

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGuttmacher Institute Inc: $58,228 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNational Women's Health Network: $55,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetNEO Philanthropy Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSHARE EQUITY: $18,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCAROLINA ABORTION FUND: $15,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetHESPERIAN HEALTH GUIDES: $13,900 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetHOLLER HEALTH JUSTICE INC: $8,000 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Fidelity Investments …
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA5.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 9 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 Ipas’ 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