· Public charity
Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation
Partners In Health (PIH) is a non-profit, global health organization that fights social injustice by bringing the benefits of modern medical science first and foremost to the most vulnerable communities worldwide.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 14 grants below total $2,897,836 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $52,855,211 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $49,957,375 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $125k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $736k
- $250k+2 grants · $2.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Community Outreach & Patient Empowerment (COPE) | $1,620,521 |
| Stanford University (Stanford Biodesign) | $407,597 |
| President & Fellows of Harvard College | $239,136 |
| North Carolina Community Health Worker Assoc | $168,479 |
| University of Washington | $92,680 |
| Public Equity | $60,668 |
| Regents of the University of California SF | $60,589 |
| Massachusetts General Hospital | $60,000 |
| Partners In Agriculture Inc | $54,715 |
| Summits Education Inc | $49,164 |
| Tufts University | $44,380 |
| Grassroot Soccer Inc | $17,344 |
| Brigham and Women's Hospital | $14,494 |
| Univ of WI Madison | $8,069 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–22, $1.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 74% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $50M on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 7 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: Healthcare
Stated purpose: Healthcare
Stated purpose: Healthcare
Stated purpose: Healthcare
Stated purpose: Healthcare
Stated purpose: Healthcare
Stated purpose: Healthcare
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 17% of Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 37% of the giving stays in MA; read by stated purpose it is 44% — more of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +41% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 22 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $205k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- COCOMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PATIENT EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM INC9× · 2017–2025 · $14M · revenue +16% · 57% of their budget
MASSACHUSETTS LEAGUE OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS INC2× · 2020–2021 · $5.8M · revenue +43%
SUMMITS EDUCATION5× · 2017–2025 · $699k · revenue +23%
Funded once
- RTResearch Triangle Institutegraduatedone grant, 2021 · $5.7M · revenue +30%
- MRMICHAEL REESE HEALTH TRUSTone grant, 2022 · $504k · revenue +4%
- BCBALTIMORE CORPS INCone grant, 2022 · $299k · revenue -26%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
CommonHealth ACTION develops people and organizations to produce health through equitable policies, programs, and practices.
Commonwealth care alliance, inc.'s mission is to improve the health and well-being of people with significant needs by innovating, coordinating and providing the highest quality, individualized care.
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustful environment through the expertise, committment, and compassion of our family of caregivers.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.
The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…
See schedule oto serve the public by:- assuring the qualifications of health care professionals- providing primary-source verification of credentials of health careprofessionals, as they serve throughout the world- supporting international…
Building a movement of diverse, upwardly mobile college grads overcoming underemployment through digital skills and peer connections.
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…
Florida community health centers, inc. (fchc) is a federally qualified health center serving medically needy populations in south florida, with an emphasis on serving rural and farm worker communities.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montgomery Area Community Wellness Coalition and the most unlike its peers is Associacion De Mexicanos En Carolina Del Nort. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 25 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
62 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 62 of the 79 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PATIENT EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds MASSACHUSETTS LEAGUE OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS INC ↗
- Who funds Research Triangle Institute ↗
- Who funds CORE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED RELIEF EFFORT ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds SUMMITS EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds PIVOT WORKS INC ↗
- Who funds MICHAEL REESE HEALTH TRUST ↗
- Who funds GRASSROOT SOCCER INC ↗
- Who funds BALTIMORE CORPS INC ↗
- Who funds ACCESS HEALTHCOLUMBUS DBA HEALTH IMPACT OHIO ↗
- Who funds The Coalition of Immokalee Workers Inc ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN AGRICULTURE INC ↗
- Who funds United Community Corporation ↗
- Who funds Eugene Bell Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds North Carolina Community Health Worker Association ↗
- Who funds NC Field Inc ↗
- Who funds COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds The Chad School Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds MAINE PEOPLE'S RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR FAIR FOOD ↗
- Who funds American Indian Association of Tucson Inc ↗
- Who funds MONTGOMERY AREA COMMUNITY WELLNESS COALITION ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC EQUITY ↗
- Who funds GANG FREE INC ↗
- Who funds LINCOLN PARK COAST CULTURAL DISTRICT INC ↗
- Who funds MEDIC MOBILE INC ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA CENTER FOR EMPOWERMENT ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Nc Counts Coalition · Blueprint North Carolina · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Path · Gates Foundation · Jsi Research & Training Institute Inc · Z Smith Reynolds Foundation Inc · Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro Inc · Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · WK Kellogg Foundation · Common Counsel Foundation · Hopewell Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Northstar Learning Centers Inc — 63% of income from government
- United Community Corporation — 45% of income from government
- Health Resources in Action Inc — 39% of income from government
- Adventist Development & Relief Agency International — 35% of income from government
- Boston Medical Center Corporation — 23% of income from government
- Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers Inc — 15% of income from government
- Collier Health Services Inc — 15% of income from government
- Baltimore Corps Inc — 15% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Middlebury College — 1% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.