Ipas
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 561071085
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9199677052
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $55,616,322
- Expenses
- $61,334,082
- Assets
- $161,444,854
- Liabilities
- $6,349,091
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANURADHA KUMAR (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ANURADHA KUMAR (PRESIDENT & CEO): $508,740 total reported compensation
- LISA SIMUTAMI (EVP & COO (THRU 3/25)): $319,900 total reported compensation
- KATHRYN ANDERSEN (EVP & CHF SCIENTIFIC & TECH OFFICER): $281,452 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We work with partners around the world to advance reproductive justice by expanding access to abortion and contraception.
What it reported doing in 2024
Ipas ensures that people have the highest possible quality abortion and contraceptive care.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.4%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $24.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Pass
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 51.6%; rating input score 52; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -10.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.63; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 17 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 8 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 96.4% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $53.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $509K · 23 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.2M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 39 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.