Skip to content
The Task Force for Global Health Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Task Force for Global Health Inc

The mission of The Task Force for Global Health is to solve large-scale health problems affecting populations through three impact areas: health system strengthening, center for vaccine equity, and neglected tropical diseases.

$11M
Granted FY2021
4
Grants FY2021
4
States reached
$2.4M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2021 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $2,526,668, the rows itemized in this filing. The $11,498,310 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $8,971,642 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2021

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $107k
  • $250k+1 grant · $2.4M
$48,831
Median grant
4
States reached
$132M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Center for Global Health Innovation$2,419,633
Georgetown University$48,831
The Regents of the University of California$39,654
Meritus Advisory Group LLC$18,550
02The need
02

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 (FY21–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%The Regents of the University of California: $40k → 10%Georgetown University: $49k → 14%Center for Global Health Innovation: $2.4M → 13%Meritus Advisory Group LLC: $19k → 12%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $15M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 9 regions, $14M to organizations and $1.3M to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$11M · 71% · 3 grants · 20 people

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels. · Grant · Supporting Global Elimination of Blinding Trachoma

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$1.6M · 10% · 2 grants · 33 people

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels. · Supporting Global Elimination of Blinding Trachoma · Consultancy

South America$1.3M · 9% · 1 grant · 27 people

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels. · Grant

South Asia$558k · 4% · 1 grant · 16 people

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels. · Grant

East Asia and the Pacific$353k · 2% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels. · Grants

Middle East and North Africa$308k · 2% · 1 grant · 7 people

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels. · Grant

Central America and the Caribbean$176k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels.

Russia and Neighboring States$98k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels.

North America (Canada and Mexico)$60k · 0% · 2 grants · 1 person

Stated purpose: Awards to Ministries of Health and NGO's to support capacity building for vaccination programs or research for helping with infectious diseases at National and Regional Levels. · Grant · Consultancy

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. 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.
03Its field
03the grantee network

2 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. 2 of the 4 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
2/2
Grantees still filing
1/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CENTER FOR GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION: $2,419,633 · OtherCENTER FOR GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION+2 more: $58,204 · OtherGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $48,831 · Education
Other$2,477,837Education$48,831

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCENTER FOR GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION: $2,419,633 over 1y, 40% of budgetGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $48,831 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Task Force for Global Health Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Task Force for Global Health Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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.

    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 4 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $28M 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 FY2021, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Task Force for Global Health’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home