National Institute for Reproductive Health
Legal name: National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 133030257
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, US
- Phone
- 212-343-0114 ext.2010
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Reproductive Rights
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,198,480
- Expenses
- $5,495,900
- Assets
- $5,739,873
- Liabilities
- $1,014,622
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHRISTIAN LOBUE (PRESIDENT (INCOMING 12/02/24))
Highest reported compensation
- HAYDEE MORALES (INTERIM PRES. (THRU 12/24)/COO): $340,476 total reported compensation
- KELLI GARCIA (VP RESEARCH AND POLICY): $193,630 total reported compensation
- BONYEN LEE GILMORE (VP OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND COMMS.): $190,451 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To advance reproductive freedom for all by building state and local power, passing proactive policies, and promoting health equity.
What it reported doing in 2024
The national institute for reproductive health advances reproductive health, rights, and justice, by supporting proactive advocacy at both the state and local levels. Through funding and strategic assistance and partnerships with community-based and state-based organizations, we help build momentum for policy change that expands access to care and strengthens reproductive freedom. We work to build the ecosystem of advocacy in the states and engage local policymakers to change the public dialogue on reproductive freedom in support of increased access to reproductive health care.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 20
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.2%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 68.7%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.8%; rating input score 99; 36th 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; 63rd 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: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -30.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 25%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 10 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 90.2% of revenue deployed · 68.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $340K · 23 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $813K reported
- Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 16 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.