Loading…
· Public charity
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE
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.
$95k
Granted FY2021
3
Grants
3
Communities
$64k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 59% of NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2019
educationworksexpand
2020
socialplanned parenthoodparenthood votes
2021
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2021 · 3 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2021
- $10k–50k2 grants · $31k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $64k
$20,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$673k
Total assets
Largest grants
- ARIZONAS FAMILIES FIRST$63,500
- PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES NEW MEXICO$20,000
- NETA COLLAB LLC$11,000
02The need
04
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY20–20, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your field
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.
1
Pro-Choice Washington
To protect and promote every persons right to access the full range of reproductive healthcare choices in Washington State, including safe and legal abortion, through education, advocacy, lobbying and coalition-building
—
2
Pro-Choice Arizona
Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…
Health
3
Planned Parenthood Votes Ri
To protect women's health and reproductive choice through advocacy in Rhode Island.
—
4
Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan
To provide high quality, reproductive healthcare services to promote healthy sexuality and responsible decision, and to protect the right to make these decisions.
Health
5
Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance
WRRAP's mission is to ensure that individuals from all walks of life are afforded the equal opportunity to gain access to safe and legal abortion services.
Health
6
Planned Parenthood Los Angeles
To provide access to a comprehensive range of quality reproductive health care services. this includes health care and sexual health information through patient services, education, and advocacy.
Health
7
Pro Choice Virginia
To develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every person the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing…
Civil Rights
8
Pro-Choice Oregon Foundation
Pro-choice oregon foundation supports and defends, as a fundamental right and value, a person's freedom to make individual decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices.
—
9
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Organize, mobilize, amplify medical provider voices to advance sexual and reproductive health rights & justice. Ensure access to abortion care & comprehensive healthcare.
Civil Rights
10
National Family Planning &
The national family planning & reproductive health association (nfprha) is a nonprofit membership organization representing providers and administrators committed to helping people get the family planning education and care they need to…
Health
11
International Planned Parenthood Federation
Ippfwhr (dba fos feminista) aims to improve the quality of life of individuals by promoting for sexual and reproductive health and rights through advocacy and services.
International
12
Pro-Choice Washington Foundation
The Pro-Choice Washington Foundation is our 501c3 focused on issue research, leadership development, and community and decision-maker education.
Civil Rights
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Reproductive Equity Now Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Pro Choice Oregon. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
9 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$314,450Civil Rights$127,000Health$63,000Human Services$32,500
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 NEO PHILANTHROPY ACTION FUND INC VIRGINIA PLUS ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE OREGON ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE MASSACHUSETTS ↗
- Who funds FORWARD TOGETHER ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES NEW MEXICO ↗
- Who funds NARAL PRO-CHOICE MASSACHUSETTS ↗
- Who funds FORWARD TOGETHER ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF DELAWARE ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS NOW NEW MEXICO ↗
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 tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
New Venture FundDC14.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: New Venture Fund · Reproductive Freedom for All · North Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 organisation NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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. 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.
04Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: NARAL PRO-CHOICE OREGON.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
low risk
6 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 930700353 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on NARAL PRO-CHOICE OREGON, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue contracted over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 29% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to National Institute for Reproductive?
Find your warmest path to National Institute for Reproductive through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines