· Public charity
Reproductive Health Access Project Inc
The purpose of this organization is to ensure and expand equitable access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion, contraception and miscarriage care.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 15 grants below total $243,711 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $302,525 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $58,814 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 $10k3 grants · $27k
- $10k–50k12 grants · $217k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FND | $40,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH | $25,000 |
| RUTGERS | $20,000 |
| FAMILY TREE CLINIC | $18,000 |
| OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY | $18,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FND | $14,711 |
| RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC HEALTH | $13,500 |
| THE COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM | $13,500 |
| MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM | $13,500 |
| RYAN HEALTH | $13,500 |
| OUTSIDE IN | $13,500 |
| UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS - CHIC | $13,500 |
| KLAMATH HEALTH PARTNERSHIP | $9,000 |
| KOKUA KALIHI VALLEY COMPREHEN | $9,000 |
| BOSTON CHILDRENS HOSPITAL | $9,000 |
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 43% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
5 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 41% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $144k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- CHCAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC8× · 2018–2025 · $239k · revenue +125%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION6× · 2020–2025 · $126k · revenue +7%
- RTRUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY5× · 2021–2025 · $100k
Funded once
- PCPRIMARY CARE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $26k · revenue +100%
- SRSEATTLE ROOTS COMMUNITY HEALTHone grant, 2024 · $9k · revenue 0%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustful environment through the expertise, committment, and compassion of our family of caregivers.
Primary functions are the coordination and delivery of health care resources and services, health care education for the hospital service area, long range analysis of health care needs and development of programs, and arranging for…
To support salem health, salem health west valley and related organizations.
To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustfulenvironment through the expertise, commitment and compassion of ourfamily of caregivers.
To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustfulenvironment through the expertise, commitment and compassion of ourfamily of caregivers.
To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.
The organization provides primary medical, behavior health, and dental care to the population of san joaquin, and solano counties without regard to patients' ability to pay.
The children's hospital of philadelphia, the oldest hospital in the united states dedicated exclusively to pediatrics, strives to be the world leader in the advancement of health care for children by integrating excellent patient care,…
Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.
To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustfulenvironment through the expertise, commitment, and compassion ofour family of caregivers.
The organization provides medical care to improve, maintain, and restore the health of the people in the communities we serve.
Kapi'olani medical specialists (dba hawai'i pacific health medical group) is a multispecialty provider group dedicated to providing world-class care for adults and children across hawai'i and the pacific region working in partnership with…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Multicare Health System and the most unlike its peers is Rhode Island Hospital. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 18 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 CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH ↗
- Who funds PRIMARY CARE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
- Who funds OUTSIDE IN ↗
- Who funds Rhode Island Hospital ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM F RYAN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE ROOTS COMMUNITY HEALTH ↗
- Who funds KLAMATH HEALTH PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Corporation ↗
- Who funds KOKUA KALIHI VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY SERVICES ↗
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.
Open a dossier: American Cancer Society Inc · Direct Relief · 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 organization Reproductive Health Access Project Inc 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.
- Outside in — 33% of income from government
- Klamath Health Partnership Inc — 20% of income from government
- Children's Hospital Corporation — 10% of income from government
- Oregon State University Foundation — 0% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Reproductive Health Access Project Inc?
Find your warmest path to Reproductive Health Access Project Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.