Skip to content
Cancer Prevention Initiative Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Cancer Prevention Initiative Inc

Cancer Prevention Initiative, Inc.

$725k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$450k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$3.3M
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $275k
  • $250k+1 grant · $450k
$150,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center$450,000
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center$150,000
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center$125,000
02The need
03

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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%Dana Farber Cancer Institute: $450k → 16%City of Hope: $150k → 14%Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: $150k → 17%University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center: $200k → 14%University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center: $450k → 16%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $289k → 19%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $373k → 16%Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: $150k → 17%University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center: $200k → 14%BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $8k → 16%Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: $200k → 16%University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center: $180k → 14%University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center: $150k → 14%University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center: $125k → 14%Southwestern Medical Foundation: $50k → 14%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.
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 3 repeat orgs$1.3M to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
6

Total granted

$2.0M
$847k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+17%
+64%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $450k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’20’21’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’20’21’23’24’25
HealthEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • US
    UT SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH SYSTEMS
    5× · 2020–2025 · $855k · revenue -37%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    2× · 2017–2024 · $823k · revenue +162%
  • MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER
    2× · 2021–2025 · $300k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITYgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $289k · revenue +64%
  • BI
    BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $200k · revenue +64%
  • CITY OF HOPE
    one grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue +3%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The Johns Hopkins Hospital

For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…

Health
2
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
3
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o

Health
4
Mass General Brigham Incorporated & Affiliates Group Return

Mass general brigham incorporated is developing an integrated health care delivery system throughout the region that offers patients a continuum of coordinated, high-quality care.

Health
5
Baylor Research Institute

To improve the care and well being of our community, nationally and internationally, through innovative clinically relevant research that is consistent with the mission, vision and values of Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH).

Health
6
University of Minnesota Physicians

University of minnesota physicians serves as the integrated group practice for the university of minnesota medical school full-time faculty to provide the highest quality healthcare to patients and their families.university of minnesota…

Health
7
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
8
Truman Medical Center Incorporated

University health is an academic health center providing accessible, state-of-the-art quality healthcare to our community regardless of the ability to pay.

Health
9
University of Chicago Medical Center

Our mission at the university of chicago medicine is to provide superior health care through rigorous research, innovative education, and comprehensive care and healing. in partnership with our colleagues, we pursue life-changing…

Health
10
Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute

Sanford burnham prebys medical discovery institute's mission is to advance the biomedical sciences by cultivating the next generation of scientific leaders, providing meaningful opportunities for researchers of all backgrounds to learn,…

Health
11
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

As a leading academic healthcare organization, our mission is to elevate the health status of the communities we serve.(see schedule o for continuation)(continued)-we deliver exceptional healthcare enhanced by research and education-we…

Health
12
Methodist Hospitals of Dallas

The primary mission or purpose of methodist health system is to serve people in defined service areas by meeting their health needs effectively and in a manner that reflects a "commitment to the christian concepts of life and learning" as…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ut Southwestern Health Systems; the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 10 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UT SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH SYSTEMS: $855,000 · HealthUT SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH SYSTEMSDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $822,982 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute IncMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $300,000 · HealthMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTERBETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INC: $200,000 · HealthBETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INCCITY OF HOPE: $150,000 · HealthCITY OF HOPETHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION: $150,000 · HealthTHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATIONUTMD ANDERSON: $450,000 · OtherUTMD ANDERSONJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $288,958 · EducationJOHNS HOPKIN…SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $50,000 · EducationSOUTHWESTERN…+1 more: $8,000 · Education
Health$2,477,982Other$450,000Education$346,958

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUT SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH SYSTEMS: $855,000 over 5y, 8.9% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $822,982 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $300,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $288,958 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INC: $200,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCITY OF HOPE: $150,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION: $150,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBaylor College of Medicine: $8,000 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 Cancer Prevention Initiative Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cancer Prevention Initiative Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Inc: 6% of 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 · 0–20%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Cancer Prevention Initiative Inc?

Find your warmest path to Cancer Prevention Initiative Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 10 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Cancer Prevention Initiative’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