Skip to content
Reproductive Health Access Project Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$204k
Granted FY2026still arriving
5
Grants FY2026still arriving
4
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Health$613kEducation$165k
02FY2026 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $100,505, the rows itemized in this filing. The $204,101 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $103,596 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.
$20,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$498k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH$25,000
CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FND$20,000
RUTGERS$20,000
THE REGENTS OF UNIV OF MICH$20,000
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FND$15,505
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 (FY18–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 44% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FND: $40k → 8%BOSTON CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: $9k → 16%FAMILY TREE CLINIC: $18k → 14%KOKUA KALIHI VALLEY COMPREHEN: $9k → 9%PRIMARY CARE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $26k → 17%THE REGENTS OF UNIV OF MICH: $20k → 14%OUTSIDE IN: $14k → 12%KLAMATH HEALTH PARTNERSHIP: $9k → 16%OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: $18k → 18%RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC HEALTH: $14k → 14%COUNTRY DR COMM HEALTH CTR: $9k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS - CHIC: $14k → 14%RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY: $20k → 8%THE COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM: $14k → 12%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC: $39k → 8%RYAN HEALTH: $14k → 17%THE REGENTS OF UNIV OF MICH: $20k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $20k → 9%RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY: $20k → 8%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC: $30k → 8%INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH: $25k → 17%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $20k → 14%RUTGERS: $20k → 8%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC: $30k → 8%INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH: $25k → 17%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $20k → 14%RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY: $20k → 8%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC: $30k → 8%THE INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH: $20k → 17%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $10k → 14%RUTGERS: $20k → 8%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC: $30k → 8%THE INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH: $20k → 17%RUTGERS: $20k → 8%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FND: $20k → 8%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FND: $20k → 8%CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC: $20k → 8%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

WA
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
NJ
RI
CA
HI
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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$699k · 5 repeat orgs$179k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +7% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2026, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
13

Total granted

$699k
$179k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+7%
0%

Still filing today

60%
77%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
HealthEducationOther
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

  • CH
    CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC
    9× · 2018–2026 · $259k · revenue +125%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
    7× · 2020–2026 · $141k · revenue +7%
  • RT
    RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY
    6× · 2021–2026 · $120k

Funded once

  • PC
    PRIMARY CARE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $26k · revenue +100%
  • Oregon State University Foundation
    one grant, 2025 · $18k · revenue 0%
  • FT
    FAMILY TREE CLINIC
    one grant, 2025 · $18k
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
Central Maine Healthcare Corporation

To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustful environment through the expertise, committment, and compassion of our family of caregivers.

Health
2
Hartford HealthCare Medical Group Specialists Pllc

The Mission of Hartford HealthCare Medical Group Specialists, PLLC is to put the patients first, provide coordinated quality care and value, exceed the expectations of patients, providers, staff and the community that it serves.

Health
3
University Health Inc

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…

—
4
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

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
5
Kapi'olani Medical Specialists

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…

Health
6
Mass General Brigham Incorporated & Affiliates Group Return

Mass general brigham incorporated is developing an integrated health care delivery system throughout the region that offers patients a continuum of coordinated, high-quality care.

Health
7
Rumford Hospital

To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustfulenvironment through the expertise, commitment and compassion of ourfamily of caregivers.

Health
8
Central Maine Medical Center

To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustfulenvironment through the expertise, commitment and compassion of ourfamily of caregivers.

Health
9
Union Health System

To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.

Health
10
Salem Health Hospitals & Clinics

To support salem health, salem health west valley and related organizations.

—
11
Charles River Community Health Inc

To partner with individuals and families so they can thrive and lead healthier lives by delivering the comprehensive, integrated, and equitable primary healthcare that matters most to them.

Health
12
Community Health Center of Snohomish County

Community health center of snohomish county (chc) provides our diverse communities with access to high quality, affordable primary health care.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Multicare Health System; the most unlike its peers is Children's Hospital Corporation. 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

13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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.

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)
13/13
Grantees still filing
6/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC: $258,598 · HealthCAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INCTHE INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH: $90,000 · HealthTHE INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTHPRIMARY CARE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $26,000 · HealthPRIMARY CARE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION+7 more: $76,500 · Health+7 moreRUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY: $120,000 · OtherRUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITYREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $89,652 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHI…FAMILY TREE CLINIC: $18,000 · OtherFAMILY TREE CLINICCOOPER HEALTH SYSTEMS: $13,500 · OtherTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $13,500 · OtherOUTSIDE IN: $13,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $141,195 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WASHIN…Oregon State University Foundation: $18,000 · EducationOregon State Univers…
Health$451,098Other$268,152Education$159,195

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 budgetCAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION INC: $258,598 over 9y, 2.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION: $141,195 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTHE INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY HEALTH: $90,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPRIMARY CARE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $26,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetOregon State University Foundation: $18,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOUTSIDE IN: $13,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRhode Island Hospital: $13,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSEATTLE ROOTS COMMUNITY HEALTH: $9,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKOKUA KALIHI VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE FAMILY SERVICES: $9,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetChildren's Hospital Corporation: $9,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

American Cancer Socie…Direct ReliefFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Cancer Society IncGA15.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Cancer Society Inc · Direct Relief · 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 Reproductive Health Access Project Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Reproductive Health Access Project Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →median 20%
  • 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
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.
05Through Plinth

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.

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 18 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Reproductive Health Access Project’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