Center for Reproductive Rights
106
"Up" is the number of experts who agree that the nonprofit has had the most impact in the
field. "Down" is the number of experts who disagree that the nonprofit has had the most impact in field.
Tags:
national, women's reproductive health, policy, advocacy, health reform, health equity, resource services, contraception, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, adolescent sexual health
Summary
Stories
Expert Reviews
Leadership
From the Nonprofit
Leadership
Nancy Northup.
Nancy Northup is the President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a global human rights organization that uses constitutional and international law to secure women's reproductive freedom. The Center has brought groundbreaking cases before national courts, U.N. committees, and regional human rights bodies, and has built the legal capacity of women's rights advocates in over 45 countries. Ms. Northup joined…
See full bio.
Financial Data
Overhead Ratio:
24.29%
Total Revenue:
$8,892,410
From the Nonprofit
The nonprofit has not added any comments yet. If you are a representative of this nonprofit and would like to leave a comment, please email us at
feedback@myphilanthropedia.org
with your request.
Contact Info
Website:
E-Mail:
info AT reprorights.org
Phone:
917-637-3600
Story:
This is Shawanna Nelson’s story, a pregnant prisoner, who the Center worked with on a trial:
Shawanna Nelson was serving time for writing bad checks in an Arkansas prison when she went into labor. Even though she was not a flight risk, she was forced to give birth immobilized, with her legs shackled to a hospital bed. Under established principles of international human rights law, shackling prisoners during childbirth is tantamount to torture. Nevertheless, the practice remains common across the U.S.
In 2008, the Center submitted a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a ruling that Nelson’s treatment was lawful. In their brief, they used their expertise in international human rights and comparative law to argue that the practice of shackling prisoners during childbirth violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The court granted a rehearing, which took place in September 2009. The federal appeals court ruled in favor of Shawanna Nelson, and said that constitutional protections against shackling pregnant women during labor had been clearly established by decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower courts. This is the first time a circuit court has made such a determination.
"This is a historic decision by a U.S. Court of Appeals that affirms the dignity of all women and mothers in America," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project. "Correctional officials across the country are now on notice that they can no longer engage in this widespread practice." (Source: http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/CRR_2008_ANNUALREPORT.pdf, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/reproductive_rights/incarcerated-women/)
Expert Reviews of Center for Reproductive Rights
Evidence of Impact Summary:
Experts praise the Center for Reproductive Rights for the broad contributions to the field of reproductive rights and reproductive justice. They cite contributions to major public policy debates on the state and national level to preserve reproductive rights of women.See expert comments.
Organization Strengths Summary:
Multiple experts praise the Center for Reproductive Rights' lawyers’ expertise. Beyond staff, the organizations leadership was roundly lauded by respondents. Other experts note competencies in other elements of the center's operations.See expert comments.
Areas for Improvement Summary:
While experts supported the organization's general contributions, they noted a variety of sub topics on which they would want more advocacy. Expanding into international-focused work was cited repeatedly. Elements like marketing were also called out as areas which could use some recalibration going forward.See expert comments.
Expert Comments: Evidence of Impact
Select the boxes to display the results according to expert type.
Show:
Show:
X
Foundation Professionals (F)
X
Researchers and Faculty (R)
X
Nonprofit Senior Staff (N)
X
Other (consultants, journalists, policy makers) (O)
Impact |
|||
|
F
|
Their impact can be understood in their success in overturning draconian laws (e.g., abortion restrictions in Kansas and Oklahoma) that limit women's access to reproductive health care services or that limit access to reproductive health care services. | ||
|
F
|
Cases which they have been successful in defending reproductive rights and health issues speak to their impact. | ||
|
F
|
They are constantly refining their work and currently tying human rights to reproductive rights in the US. They are always testing and expanding legal thought by introducing the Law School Initiative. Litigation and using a human rights frame are two other signs of impact. | ||
|
F
|
They pay consistent, careful attention to making the law work for American women to the fullest extent possible, given the strength of anti-choice organizations. Specifically, they do strategic litigation at the federal and state levels that is both proactive and reactive and they pay great attention to developing future U.S.-trained lawyers who are specialists on sexual rights and reproductive rights and justice. | ||
|
F
|
The Center's domestic and international legal work has led to many key victories, such as (just two domestic examples) helping to make Plan B (emergency contraceptives) available over-the-counter and stopping many abortion restrictions. | ||
|
F
|
They offered successful litigation throughout the country, including at the Supreme Court level, to uphold the reproductive rights of women. | ||
|
R
|
They litigate anti-abortion laws at state levels. | ||
|
R
|
Strategic leadership in the area and developing new avenues for advocacy are major areas of impact. | ||
|
R
|
New legal theories and challenges to restrictive laws signify their impact. | ||
|
R
|
They have had a major impact on policy, legislation, and judicial decisions with respect to reproductive rights, particularly in abortion care and access. | ||
|
R
|
They collectively serve an essential function for the reproductive health/rights/justice communities. Namely, they work tirelessly to curtail egregious laws based by social conservatives, both restricting abortion and other related services. | ||
|
R
|
The Center has been extremely effective in challenging abortion restrictions. Even when not ultimately successful, the suits and appeals usually delay the implementation of onerous requirements on abortion providers and patients. | ||
|
R
|
They help to decrease the number of abortion restrictions through litigation. They also do significant work to improve reproductive health and access globally through direct advocacy and by helping to train advocates in other countries. | ||
|
R
|
This organization plays a key role in challenging laws harmful to reproductive health in the US and provides important information on the legal context surrounding reproductive health issues in the US and internationally. I see their name referenced in the news a lot. | ||
|
R
|
They keep legal issues surrounding abortion and contraception in sharp focus, reaching out to block anti-choice legislation and promoting pro-choice legislation. | ||
|
R
|
They are an important defender of legal rights to contraception and abortion. | ||
|
R
|
Their impact is captured by their media influence; they are widely cited as a credible source on public policy issues related to reproductive health. | ||
|
R
|
They take on the tough legal cases involving abortion and reproductive rights and access in the US and internationally. And they WIN! | ||
|
R
|
They have been involved in many important legal cases. | ||
|
R
|
They have litigated many key cases. | ||
|
R
|
They are a very effective legal resource that has brought about successful litigation in this area. | ||
|
R
|
This organization is always there for pro-choice groups and individuals, defending against anti-choice legislation. Without the Center for Reproductive Rights, I am sure that abortion would be illegal by now as states and the federal government push the limits of what is constitutional. | ||
|
R
|
They have had several major legal wins that challenge restrictions on abortion and EC, but also keep efforts to eliminate reproductive rights in the media. | ||
|
R
|
They have helped achieve changes in laws both national and international. | ||
|
R
|
The Center for Reproductive Rights does great creative legal thinking. | ||
|
R
|
They're most effective in terms of defending women's reproductive rights through legal action, particularly as it relates to access to abortions. | ||
|
N
|
This organization has had an impact on a range of issues both domestically and internationally. My experience with them has been with emergency contraception access in general and over the counter access. They were critical in the work challenging the FDA's politically motivated decision on over the counter access to emergency contraception. | ||
|
N
|
They successfully use litigation to advocate for reproductive rights at the state, federal, and international levels. Whenever there is a law that violates reproductive rights, Center for Reproductive Rights is there to challenge the law in courts. | ||
|
N
|
Litigation is key to protecting and expanding reproductive rights and the Center for Reproductive Rights is solely focused on the legal aspects of reproductive rights. | ||
|
N
|
The Center for Reproductive Rights brings important public impact litigation, especially opposing anti-choice laws. Moreover, unlike many organizations, the Center often brings these lawsuits in states not served by other advocacy organizations. Their lawsuits are well-researched and well-litigated. What's more, they win more often than they lose. | ||
|
N
|
I see their impact in terms of their success in protecting and expanding reproductive rights for women in the United States and around the world, and in beginning to reframe abortion as a human right and abortion providers as human rights defenders. | ||
|
N
|
They offer strong legal advocacy to maintain basic, fundamental reproductive rights and fight back restrictions. | ||
|
N
|
They have stepped in quickly and effectively on many policy issues (such as the law in OK). Their public messages are clear and well thought out. They provide a strong voice on the negative impact of the reproductive health restrictions in the health reform legislation. | ||
|
N
|
CRR is at the forefront of mainstreaming human rights in domestic reproductive rights legal advocacy. Their shadow reports to U.N. treaty-monitoring bodies on racial health disparities and the Hyde Amendment are groundbreaking. They continue to fight battles in courts all over the U.S. | ||
|
N
|
The Center for Reproductive Rights offers the legal resources needed at the state-level and continues to protect reproductive health care providers against targeted regulation. | ||
|
N
|
Center for Reproductive Rights has kept clinics open by helping them defend against legislative and political harassment and are thought leaders particularly around the intersections between reproductive rights and human rights. | ||
|
N
|
The Center for Reproductive Rights has led or participated in some of the most important legal cases at the state and federal level. Most noteworthy, they partnered with Planned Parenthood Federation of America to argue the landmark "abortion ban" case November 2006. | ||
|
N
|
They have pushed state level litigation regarding reproductive rights. | ||
|
N
|
I think they are doing priceless work on the legal reform side of our movement. They are indispensable but often overlooked or neglected. | ||
|
N
|
They have led the litigation of cases based on Roe. | ||
|
N
|
They have more than 15 years representing women's reproductive rights including defeating bans on abortion in several states, protecting teens' access to confidential reproductive health care in several states, and strong collaborative programs/activities with multiple like-minded organizations in the many countries. | ||
|
O
|
They are exploring human rights legal theories for reproductive rights. I believe this is necessary because Roe is virtually a shell and privacy is not an adequate protection. | ||
|
O
|
They're involved in litigation at the highest level (Supreme Court). They also have expertise shared with attorneys, advocates, policymakers, and other practitioners across the US. | ||
|
O
|
They're dynamic opinion makers and vigorous catalysts for reproductive justice. | ||
Expert Comments: Organization Strengths
Select the boxes to display the results according to expert type.
Show:
Show:
X
Foundation Professionals (F)
X
Researchers and Faculty (R)
X
Nonprofit Senior Staff (N)
X
Other (consultants, journalists, policy makers) (O)
Leadership |
|||
|
F
|
Leadership, clarity of mission, integration of work at the international, national and state levels, innovative legal strategies, and emphasis on diversity are strengths. | ||
|
F
|
Leadership and staff expertise to push issues and advocate in the US and internationally are strengths. | ||
|
F
|
I feel the organization has consistently maintained strong leadership and a depth of top-notch legal staff. They also have a strong, complementary communications arm. Finally, I feel they have been attentive to making the law work for all U.S. communities - people of color, low-income, etc. | ||
|
F
|
Nancy Northup is an especially courageous and outspoken executive director and one of our field's strongest leaders today. She is willing to take a "hard-line" when many organizations unfortunately are moderating or quieting their approach. The organization also has a very talented and able staff at many levels of the organization - from the executive team to their interns. Overall, it is an exceedingly solid, well-run organization that uses resources very effectively. | ||
|
F
|
The organization has very strong leadership and staff. They effectively publicize key reproductive health issues through their own publications, website, as well as in the media. | ||
|
R
|
They have strong, smart leadership and an excellent, creative staff. | ||
|
R
|
Their leadership and collaboration are strengths. | ||
|
R
|
They have strong leadership and extremely effective staff attorneys. The dismal and precarious legal state of abortion services in the U.S. would be far worse were it not for this group. For example, the horrible ultrasound laws just passed in Oklahoma will be challenged by the CRR. I shudder to think what shape abortion care would be in without this kind of pro bono legal talent. | ||
|
R
|
Nancy Northrup is an awesome leader and fearless speaker. They have some dynamic young board members. | ||
|
R
|
They have very strong leadership and staff, as well as an effective communications team. | ||
|
N
|
Staff legal expertise and national reach are strengths. | ||
|
N
|
Cindy Soohoo was a huge addition to the staff. She is a thoughtful leader and approachable personality. They run a tight ship and always come through on commitments. They are an easy to partner with. | ||
|
N
|
Nancy Northrup brings strong legal expertise and a team of competent skilled lawyers which is their niche. | ||
|
O
|
They have strong leadership at the top, excellent lawyers, and courage not seen in many other groups. | ||
|
O
|
Leadership, policy making, and articulation are strengths. | ||
Operations |
|||
|
F
|
Staff, management, and legal department are their strengths. | ||
|
N
|
They have good marketing, their lawyers are skilled, and they have consultants who have been working in the field for many years (or decades) who amplify the expertise of their staff. | ||
Field Leadership |
|||
|
F
|
They offer great strategic litigation; I can't imagine what the movement would do without them. | ||
Program design |
|||
|
R
|
They innovate and actively seek important projects. | ||
|
R
|
Concrete action: their work and its results are very tangible. They are also building a track record of defending women's rights in the area of coerced sterilization, which is important. | ||
|
R
|
They are strategic, understand their unique niche, and are willing to be courageous in a very difficult time. | ||
Connections |
|||
|
R
|
This group has made interdisciplinary connections (with doctors, professional societies, individual clinicians) to advance their mission. | ||
Staff |
|||
|
R
|
The legal staff is extremely smart and effective. They are easy to work with and realistic about legal and political strategies. | ||
|
R
|
Their incredibly dedicated and highly knowledgeable staff is a major strength. | ||
|
N
|
I like their staff, I have liked their charismatic leaders (from Janet to Nancy), I think they are well run, I like their fellows program and other "entry-level" opportunities, and I like that they bring domestic lessons to the global landscape and vice versa. | ||
Finances |
|||
|
R
|
This organization is well-funded. It is staffed by excellent attorneys with strong litigation experience. | ||
|
N
|
The Center for Reproductive Rights is very financially stable. They have substantial expertise in TRAP laws. | ||
Legal expertise |
|||
|
R
|
Dedication, networking, intellectual quotient of the lawyers and staff are strengths. | ||
|
R
|
They have superb lawyers. | ||
|
N
|
They have done a great job working through the courts on reproductive rights and they have a strong, talented staff. | ||
|
N
|
From my understanding, their legal staff is top notch. | ||
|
N
|
Their litigation capacity and understanding of cases that are pending around the country are strengths. | ||
|
O
|
The competence and dedication of legal staff and professional education are strengths. | ||
Expanding reach |
|||
|
R
|
The organization is expanding its reach internationally and publishing path breaking work on reproductive rights as fundamental human rights. | ||
Communication |
|||
|
R
|
Their communication with supporters is frequent, clear, and consistent. | ||
Collaboration |
|||
|
R
|
Their leadership and collaboration with other organizations are assets. | ||
|
R
|
The Center for Reproductive Rights is very good at reaching out to the reproductive health community so their work is grounded in reality. | ||
|
N
|
They reach out and collaborate openly with a sharing spirit with those that share their mission or can provide support to achieve their objectives. They are not turfy. | ||
Impact & Funding |
|||
|
R
|
The Center for Reproductive Rights does excellent work and is well-funded; it also has great lawyers. | ||
Advocacy |
|||
|
N
|
The Center for Reproductive Rights also successfully advocates at the Federal level when it comes to US federal policies that impact reproductive rights internationally. CRR successfully got the State Department to include reproductive rights in its annual human rights reports for countries to ensure that the US Department of State monitors reproductive rights. | ||
|
N
|
Strong negotiation skills and an ability to hold FDA accountable through court action related to access to emergency contraception are strengths. Their successful efforts to frame preventable maternal death as a human rights violations are also signs of success. | ||
Leverage resources |
|||
|
N
|
They raise and leverage resources well and are accessible to many in the field, at multiple levels (large/small, state/national, newer/more established). | ||
Expert Comments: Areas for Improvement
Select the boxes to display the results according to expert type.
Show:
Show:
X
Foundation Professionals (F)
X
Researchers and Faculty (R)
X
Nonprofit Senior Staff (N)
X
Other (consultants, journalists, policy makers) (O)
More diversity |
|||
|
F
|
Giving more visibility to secondary leadership and diversifying staff would be welcome changes. | ||
|
N
|
Their marketing can sometimes feel over the top. For example, the last two annual reports are exceedingly long and filled with a lot of empty space. They could also benefit from a more diverse staff, particularly among their domestic attorneys who seem to consistently be white women from Ivy League backgrounds. It would be great to work with some lawyers who can draw from life experiences on reproductive justice issues. | ||
Improve funding |
|||
|
F
|
As with all nonprofits, their funding has decreased. Additional funds would all Center for Reproductive Rights to hire staff for more work. | ||
|
F
|
They could use help in strengthening their financial support, their communications strategy (new media) and broaden their diversity. | ||
More collaboration |
|||
|
F
|
I suppose better coordination with similar NGOs - an ongoing challenge for all. They could also give more consistent attention to proactive legislative and policy work at both federal and state levels. I know they are working on this (just hired staff), but not sure of improvements on this yet. | ||
|
R
|
The President needs to work on delegating leadership and a public role to more of the staff. The organization sometimes does not interact cooperatively and respectfully with its coalition partners. They need a stronger presence in Congress. | ||
|
R
|
In policy advocacy, they are not known for working collaboratively or understanding the importance of women of color leadership or the intersection of race and ethnicity on women's health and rights. | ||
|
N
|
The Center does not always play well with others. Sometimes they act in a state without checking to see if local advocates need the help or agree with the approach the Center is taking. That said, the Center is somewhat less prone to this behavior than some other national organizations. It also seems to have pretty high turnover, especially in recent years. | ||
|
N
|
CRR could benefit from putting more resources into connecting with state-level advocates. Because they are a national organization that mostly puts out fires, there isn't much investment in relationships with those who are based in the state context. | ||
|
N
|
Sometimes they are in a silo for their work and don't partner as willingly. | ||
|
N
|
They could better communicate the implications of litigation and tie coalition partners into the ability to publicly discuss the cases and use them for organizing and public education vehicles. | ||
Collaboration |
|||
|
F
|
They should build deeper relationships with other non-legal organizations to move a broader agenda. Sometimes you don't want to lead with a legal strategy, so it is important to support allies using other strategies. | ||
Integrate programming |
|||
|
R
|
For many years, they have worked to better internally integrate their international and domestic work. I think there's more to be done in that regard. | ||
Expand programming |
|||
|
R
|
They could do more legal writing. | ||
|
R
|
They should bring their outstanding work to a larger audience to support their activities. | ||
Refine focus |
|||
|
R
|
They should give more support for state-to-state issues. | ||
|
R
|
My personal wish is that they would focus their efforts on US needs and cases. Much of their work is international and we just have so much need at home. I also would like to see their legal and policy expertise take on the problems with contraceptive insurance coverage and equity. I don't know how well they are known within the legal world, but I think that would be a great arena for them to raise donations. | ||
|
R
|
Funding strategies are more unclear than they need to be and don’t give enough attention to issues beyond US. | ||
|
N
|
It would be interesting to either see more proactive (vs. defensive) legal strategies initiated at there. Also, I'm not sure how much they engage in cross-organizational efforts - we are part of one - but this strikes me as a potential area for more growth or visibility. | ||
|
N
|
They should focus attention on the current crisis in maternity care which limits women's choices and their legal right to make informed decisions, and exposes many women and fetuses/newborns to unnecessary harm as a human rights issue. | ||
More PR |
|||
|
R
|
CRR has a much lower public profile than it should --- it should do more to get its message out. | ||
Stronger leadership |
|||
|
R
|
I'm not confident or that familiar with their current leadership. | ||
Build capacity |
|||
|
R
|
They need more people! | ||
|
N
|
They could build local capacity and incorporate like legal non-profits under the same umbrella. | ||
|
N
|
Their follow through is not always consistent due to the amount of work on each staff member's plate. | ||
Improve brand awareness |
|||
|
N
|
Whenever we hear about reproductive rights in the US, the media seems to focus on two groups. I think Center for Reproductive Rights is much more effective and has just as much if not more impact than these larger institutions and should be highlighted to show there is a strong reproductive rights movement in the US that links US federal, state policy and law with US international federal policy and law. "National advocacy" includes advocacy around US foreign policy that impacts women in other countries and Center for Reproductive Rights makes this connection and this should be highlighted to move other groups and donors toward making the same connection. | ||
|
N
|
They need to get their cases more highly profiled in the media to draw attention both to the issue as well as the organization. | ||
Advocacy |
|||
|
N
|
Their knowledge of Washington-based policy arena is limited although expanding. | ||
|
O
|
They could be pushed to do more aggressive human rights work in the U.S. | ||
Leadership
Nancy Northup
President
President
From the Nonprofit
The nonprofit has not added any comments yet. If you are a representative of this nonprofit and would like to leave a comment, please email us at
feedback@myphilanthropedia.org
with your request.


