Skip to content

· Public charity

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 for safe, legal abortions or emergency contraceptives.

$1.8M
Granted FY2023
39
Grants FY2023
15
States reached
$210k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Health$4.9MHuman Services$122k
02FY2023 · 39 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k6 grants · $48k
  • $10k–50k19 grants · $414k
  • $50k–250k14 grants · $1.4M
$28,680
Median grant
15
States reached
$9.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Jacob Kalo MD PC dba East Gyn Ctr and Eastland Wmn Ctr (S)$210,238
Cherry Hill Women's Center$123,546
Christie Pitney Forward Midwifery (S)$122,423
Allegheny Reproductive Health Center$118,962
Philadelphia Women's Center Inc$108,612
Rachna KaulMaitri Wellness (S)$102,875
Margaret CarpenterNightingale Medical$97,496
Columbus Women's Health Organization$88,790
Robin TuckerMetro Area Advanced Practice Healthcare$79,044
Razel RemenPills by Post LLC$73,099
Manisha Kumar dba Ishani Village LLC$71,632
Delaware County Women's Center$69,650
Erika BlissEquinox Primary Care PLLC$53,615
Choix Inc$50,319
Allentown Women's Center$36,395
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 (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 84% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Manisha Kumar dba Ishani Village LLC: $72k → 11%Allentown Women's Center: $36k → 11%Allegheny Reproductive Health Center: $119k → 11%Philadelphia Women's Center Inc: $43k → 22%Choix Inc: $50k → 8%All Women's Healthcare of Columbus Inc: $45k → 14%Margaret CarpenterNightingale Medical: $97k → 16%Christie Pitney Forward Midwifery (S): $122k → 14%Dr Michael BenjaminBSSI: $41k → 13%A Woman's Choice of Jacksonville: $33k → 14%Jacob Kalo MD PC dba East Gyn Ctr and Eastland Wmn Ctr (S): $210k → 8%Heritage Clinic For Women: $46k → 11%Razel RemenPills by Post LLC: $73k → 14%Choices Memphis Center for Reproductive Health: $42k → 17%University of NC Chapel HillUNC Maternal Fetal Medicine: $33k → 13%Atlanta Women's Medical Center: $36k → 13%Columbus Women's Health Organization: $89k → 18%Women's Med Center - Dayton: $34k → 14%Women's Med Group Professional Corporation: $38k → 16%Erika BlissEquinox Primary Care PLLC: $54k → 9%Access Health Care Center: $35k → 14%Rachna KaulMaitri Wellness (S): $103k → 7%Cherry Hill Women's Center: $124k → 12%Allegheny Reproductive Health Center: $42k → 11%Philadelphia Women's Center Inc: $37k → 22%Planned Parenthood of the Great Plains (PPGP): $40k → 14%Christie Pitney Forward Midwifery (S): $80k → 14%Jacob Kalo MD PC dba East Gyn Ctr and Eastland Wmn Ctr (S): $55k → 8%Heritage Clinic for Women: $42k → 11%Razel RemenPills by Post LLC: $45k → 14%Memphis Ctr for Repro Health: $39k → 17%All Women's Healthcare of Columbus Inc: $81k → 18%Women's Medical Center - Dayton: $33k → 14%Rachna KaulMaitri Wellness (S): $50k → 7%Philadelphia Women's Center Inc: $109k → 12%Heritage Clinic PC: $33k → 11%Memphis Ctr for Repro Health: $37k → 17%Columbus Women's Health Organization: $81k → 18%Delaware County Women's Center: $70k → 12%Memphis Center for Reproductive Health: $35k → 17%All Women's Healthcare of Columbus Inc: $75k → 18%Cherry Hill Women's Center: $62k → 12%Philadelphia Women's Center Inc: $55k → 12%Carafem Virtual Visit Center (dba of FemHealth USA Inc): $34k → 14%Philadelphia Women's Center Inc: $33k → 12%Carafem (DBA FemHealth USA Inc): $32k → 14%Robin TuckerMetro Area Advanced Practice Healthcare: $79k → 14%Robin TuckerMetro Area Advanced Practice Healthcare: $39k → 14%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
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
MO
WV
VA
AZ
NM
KS
TN
NC
DC
OK
LA
GA
TX
FL
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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.4M · 44 repeat orgs$669k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +105% since the first grant, against +5% for those funded once.

44 repeat relationships: 29 still active in FY2023, 15 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

44
30

Total granted

$4.4M
$433k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+105%
+5%

Still filing today

18%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $236k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
HealthCivil RightsOther
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

  • MC
    Memphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc
    6× · 2017–2022 · $198k · revenue +59%
  • FU
    FEMHEALTH USA INC
    6× · 2018–2023 · $120k · revenue +244%
  • FW
    Feminist Womens Health Center Inc
    6× · 2018–2023 · $102k · revenue +134%

Funded once

  • AW
    All Women's Healthcare of Columbus Inc
    one grant, 2020 · $75k
  • WM
    Women's Med Center - Dayton
    one grant, 2022 · $34k
  • WM
    Women's Med Group Professional Corporation
    one grant, 2020 · $31k
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
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
2
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
3
Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida Inc

The mission of planned parenthood of southwest and central florida, inc. is to provide affordable access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare and accurate health information through patient care, education, and advocacy.

Health
4
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
5
Intermountain Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood of Montana empowers all people to make informed decisions and ensures the freedom to manage their own sexuality, and personal health by providing the highest quality confidential healthcare services, education, and…

Health
6
Planned Parenthood of the Columbia Willamette Inc

The mission of planned parenthood of the columbia willamette (ppcw) is to provide, promote and protect access to quality reproductive and sexual health care in oregon and southwest washington.

Health
7
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
8
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Inc

Our mission is to help people live full, healthy lives no matter your income, insurance, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, or immigration status; provide high-quality inclusive and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care…

Health
9
Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma Inc

To provide, promote and protect reproductive and sexual health through health services, education and advocacy.

Health
10
Planned Parenthood Keystone

The mission of planned parenthood keystone is to provide and promote access to the essential reproductive health care services and comprehensive sexuality education people need to live healthy lives and build strong communities.

Health
11
Options in Reproductive Care Inc

Options clinic helps to create healthier lives and families by providing and advocating for sexual health and education.

—
12
Planned Parenthood of Middle & East Tennesse Inc

Provide educational and medical treatment options concerning reproductive health related decisions.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Planned Parenthood Great Plains; the most unlike its peers is Planned Parenthood Minnesota North Dakota South Dakota. 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

12 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. 12 of the 84 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PHILADELPHIA WOMEN'S CENTER: $331,354 · OtherPHILADELPHIA WOMEN'S CENTERCOLUMBUS WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION: $317,822 · OtherCOLUMBUS WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATIONCHERRY HILL WOMENS CENTER: $296,401 · OtherCHERRY HILL WOMENS CENTERJacob Kalo MD PC dba East Gyn Ctr and Eastland Wmn Ctr (S): $265,480 · OtherJacob Kalo MD PC dba East Gyn Ctr and Eastland Wmn Ctr (S)Allegheny Reproductive Health Center: $237,481 · OtherChristie Pitney Forward Midwifery (S): $202,369 · OtherMemphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc: $197,925 · OtherHeritage Clinic For Women: $182,039 · OtherATLANTA WOMEN'S MEDICAL CENTER INC: $173,232 · Other+65 more: $2,481,239 · Other+65 moreFEMHEALTH USA INC: $119,859 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS: $60,358 · HealthCOMPREHENSIVE HEALTH OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS INC: $58,531 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH: $30,770 · HealthPRETERM CLEVELAND INC: $21,340 · Health+4 more: $27,838 · HealthWOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF WEST VIRGINIA INC: $25,525 · Civil Rights
Other$4,685,342Health$318,696Civil Rights$25,525

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMemphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc: $197,925 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetFEMHEALTH USA INC: $119,859 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetFeminist Womens Health Center Inc: $102,345 over 6y, 0.6% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS: $60,358 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCOMPREHENSIVE HEALTH OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS INC: $58,531 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH: $30,770 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER OF WEST VIRGINIA INC: $25,525 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetPRETERM CLEVELAND INC: $21,340 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD MINNESOTA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA: $8,454 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTH CENTRAL STATES: $8,297 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetReproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers: $5,737 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE: $5,350 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • Who funds Memphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc ↗
  • Who funds FEMHEALTH USA INC ↗
  • Who funds Feminist Womens Health Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS ↗
  • Who funds COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS INC ↗
  • Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH ↗

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.

Hopewell FundDC59.5× affinity29 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hopewell Fund · Abortion Care Network · The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · National Network of Abortion Funds · National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc · Women Donors Network · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Direct Relief · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · Silicon Valley Community 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 Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project?

    Find your warmest path to Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project 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 84 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $2.7M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project’s filings →

    More from the funding graph