Skip to content
National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

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.

$150k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$150k
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Civil Rights$613kHealth$145kPhilanthropy$80kHuman Services$64kEmployment$40kArts & Culture$11k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$150,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$215k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEW YORKERS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS$150,000
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 (FY20–20, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FORWARD TOGETHER: $33k → 10%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

NY
MA
OR
CA
CO
VA
DE
AZ
NM
DC
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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$562k · 3 repeat orgs$390k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
12

Total granted

$562k
$390k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+1%
+26%

Still filing today

67%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’24’25
Civil RightsHealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • NP
    NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc
    3× · 2020–2025 · $480k · revenue -46%
  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES NM IE
    2× · 2020–2021 · $43k
  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS ACTION FUND INC
    3× · 2018–2020 · $39k · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • PC
    PRO CHOICE OREGON
    one grant, 2019 · $75k · revenue -82% · 29% of their budget
  • AF
    ARIZONAS FAMILIES FIRST
    one grant, 2021 · $64k
  • RE
    REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $47k · revenue +548%
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
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 of Maryland Inc

The mission is to enable all marylanders to have access to a wide range of high quality, affordable reproductive health care services. by providing medical services, education, training and advocacy, ppm seeks to help individuals make…

Health
4
Physicians for Reproductive Health

Organize, mobilize, and amplify the voices of medical providers to advance sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice. we ensure access to abortion care and equitable, comprehensive health care.

Civil Rights
5
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.

—
6
Abortion Forward

Abortion forward is committed to developing and sustaining a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every ohioan the right to make personal decisions regarding a full range of reproductive choices, including legal…

—
7
Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington Dc Inc

Ppmw provides high-quality, compassionate healthcare, including reproductive care; promote sexual health; and advocate for reproductive rights and health equity for all.

Health
8
Planned Parenthood of Greater New York Inc

Ppgny is a leading provider of sexual and reproductive health services and information, a fierce advocate, and a committed partner to advance equity and improve health outcomes for all.

Health
9
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…

—
10
Planned Parenthood Action Fund of New Jersey

Planned parenthood action fund of new jersey (ppafnj) advocates for access to essential reproductive healthcare through education, activism, voter engagement, grassroots organizing and legislative advocacy.

—
11
New River Abortion Access Fund

New river abortion access fund builds power and provides direct financial and practical support to southwest virginians and appalachians seeking abortion care. we dedicated to ensuring that all people have the autonomy and resources to…

Civil Rights
12
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England Inc

Planned parenthood of southern new england provides high-quality health care, education, and advocacy to advance equity and protect the fundamental right to sexual health and reproductive freedom for all.

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

10 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. 10 of the 15 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc: $480,000 · Civil RightsNEO Philanthropy Action Fund IncREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC: $47,000 · Civil RightsREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC+1 more: $15,000 · Civil RightsPRO CHOICE OREGON: $75,000 · OtherPRO CHOICE OREGONARIZONAS FAMILIES FIRST: $63,500 · OtherARIZONAS FAMILIES FIRSTPLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES NM IE: $42,500 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES NM IEGBA STRATEGIES: $40,000 · OtherGBA STRATEGIESPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS ACTION FUND INC: $39,450 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNT…REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW INC: $33,000 · OtherREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW INCNETA COLLAB LLC: $11,000 · Other+1 more: $10,000 · OtherForward Together: $43,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF DELAWARE INC: $15,000 · HealthPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION: $5,000 · HealthFORWARD TOGETHER ACTION: $32,500 · Human Services
Civil Rights$542,000Other$314,450Health$63,000Human Services$32,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc: $480,000 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetPRO CHOICE OREGON: $75,000 over 1y, 29% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW FOUNDATION INC: $47,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetForward Together: $43,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS ACTION FUND INC: $39,450 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetREPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW INC: $33,000 over 1y, 7.9% of budgetFORWARD TOGETHER ACTION: $32,500 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetPRO CHOICE VIRGINIA: $15,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF DELAWARE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

North FundReproductive Freedom …New Venture FundSixteen Thirty FundFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
North FundDC17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: North Fund · Reproductive Freedom for All · New Venture Fund · Sixteen Thirty Fund · 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 National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 19%
  • Planned Parenthood of Delaware Inc: 19% of income from government
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
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 15 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 National Institute for Reproductive Health Action’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