Grantmakers in Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133206571
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024528331
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,721,696
Expenses
$6,725,108
Assets
$16,422,364
Liabilities
$2,533,981

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARA V JAMES PHD (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • JILL SHUMANN (VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMMING)

Highest reported compensation

  • CARA V JAMES PHD (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $451,784 total reported compensation
  • ELENA ANDERSON (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS): $271,435 total reported compensation
  • JILL SHUMANN (VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMMING): $256,540 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To foster communication and collaboration among grantmakers andothers, and to strengthen the grantmaking community's knowledge, skills, and effectiveness.

What it reported doing in 2025

4a. Convening activities - gih's convening activities include the annual conference on health philanthropy, health policy exchange, and other smaller issue-focused strategy sessions such as the rural public-private partnership meeting. The gih annual conference is the largest gathering of health funders and provides attendees the opportunity to learn from diverse persectives, discuss topical issues in health funding, and connect with peers. The health policy exchange provides opportunities for health funders focused on policy to network with policy makers and other funders, exchange ideas and best practices, and identify opportunities for collaboration.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

SUPPORTED - 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: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 62.5%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.44; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.2% of revenue deployed · 62.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $452K · 31 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.