The Task Force for Global Health
Legal name: The Task Force for Global Health Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 581698648
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Decatur, GA, USA
- Phone
- 404-371-0466
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Children's, Youth Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $114,019,244
- Expenses
- $89,589,214
- Assets
- $132,481,029
- Liabilities
- $27,232,852
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Patrick O'Carroll (President & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Patrick O'Carroll (President & CEO): $397,023 total reported compensation
- John Ward (Program Director): $317,468 total reported compensation
- Joseph Bresee (Program Director): $297,032 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 address the world's most serious and pressing threats to global health and strengthen the systems that protect and promote health.
What it reported doing in 2024
Funded principally by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the NTD-SC supports Operational Research (OR) to eliminate neglected tropical diseases that threaten the lives and well-being of more than one billion people in some of the world's poorest communities, serving as the Secretariat for the Coalition for Operational Research on Neglected Tropical Diseases (COR-NTD). As of 2024, the NTD-SC managed a portfolio of more than 330 OR projects spanning 60 countries, and targeting all five neglected tropical diseases amenable to preventive chemotherapy: lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, STH, schistosomiasis and trachoma, as well as other NTDs such as podoconiosis, leprosy and leishmaniasis. OR projects are designed to address challenges that prevent programs from achieving disease control and elimination goals and to inform World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations and guidance for NTD programs. In 2024, COR-NTD convened NTD Operational Research meetings in New Delhi, India and Brisbane, Australia in collaboration with regional WHO offices, ministries of health and local research partners, and completed the planning for a pioneering Africa-based operational research meeting on NTDs, in partnership with the African Research Network on NTDs, to take place in Kigali, Rwanda in early 2025. These regional conferences bring together researchers and country program managers and implementers to address the challenges faced by NTD programs that prevent the shared goal of eliminating these infections. With support from USAID in 2024, the NTD-SC also issued calls for proposals to support research focused on migrant and mobile populations and continued to support the African Research Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases (ARNTD) Small Grants Program. ARNTD manages a portfolio of research projects carried out by young African scientists at early stages of their careers and in 2024 the ARNTD call for proposals was also expanded to mid-career researchers for the first time. During the period, the NTD-SC also conducted a competitive process to identify Africa-based partners to transition the procurement of research supplies from a US-based to Africa-based supply chain.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 63
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 68
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66.7%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $1,446.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 54.6%; rating input score 55; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 39th 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: 21.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 15 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 66.7% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $74.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $397K · 23 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $9.7M reported
- Consistency: 42 of 44 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.