Skip to content
Cancer Support Community at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Cancer Support Community

Csc uplifts and strengthens people impacted by cancer by providing support, fostering compassionate communities, and breaking down barriers to care.

$687k
Granted FY2022
9
Grants FY2022
8
States reached
$36k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2022.

Health$526k
02FY2022 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $97,775, the rows itemized in this filing. The $686,683 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $588,908 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 · FY2022

  • Under $10k6 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
$6,700
Median grant
8
States reached
$6.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - ARIZONA$35,750
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA$12,700
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - LOS ANGELES$11,550
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - INDIANA$7,300
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - PHILADELPHIA$6,700
GILDA'S CLUB KENTUCKIANA$6,525
GILDA'S CLUB QUAD CITIES$6,250
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - ATLANTA$5,500
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - GREATER ANN ARBOR$5,500
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–21, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 20% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CSC GREATER CINCINNATINORTHERN KY: $5k → 16%CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - SOUTH JERSEY: $20k → 5%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MT
MN
MI
NY
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CA
MO
KY
AZ
DC
HI
GA
FL
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.

23%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$120k · 4 repeat orgs$407k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +42% since the first grant, against +39% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2022, 2 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
14

Total granted

$120k
$326k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
+39%

Still filing today

100%
86%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 17% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $81k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
HealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • TC
    TUBA CITY REGIONAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION
    2× · 2018–2019 · $54k · revenue +82%
  • CS
    CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY LOS ANGELES
    3× · 2017–2022 · $36k · revenue +42%
  • WC
    WHITMAN-WALKER CLINIC INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $20k · revenue +35%

Funded once

  • OH
    Orlando Health Central Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue +96%
  • IF
    INDIAN FAMILY HEALTH CLINIC OF GREAT FALLS INC
    one grant, 2020 · $38k · revenue +10%
  • NH
    NAVAJO HOPI HEALTH FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $33k · revenue +31%
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
Cancer Support Community - California Central Coast

To help people affected by cancer enhance their health and well-being through participation in a professional program of emotional support, education, and hope at no cost.

Health
2
Cancer Support Community Central Ohio

To offer a professional program of support, education, and hope, at no cost, to those affected by cancer through support groups, psychosocial support, pain management, educational workshops about a multitude of topics such as the side…

Health
3
Community Cancer Foundation

To assist, encourage, promote, and advance the best care, treatment, and rehabilitation of persons afflicted with cancer or related medical conditions.

Health
4
Cancer Support Community South Bay

The mission of cancer support community south bay is to uplift and strengthen people impacted by cancer by providing support, fostering compassionate communities, and breaking down barriers to care.

—
5
Midland County Cancer Society Dba Cancer Services

To provide personal and compassionate support to cancer patients and their caregivers in our community.

—
6
Columbus Community Clinical Oncology Program

Our mission is to deliver state-of-the-art cancer care to patients in their communities through clinical trials. this allows individuals to remain in their won neighborhoods, while receiving the latest and best in cancer screenings,…

—
7
Cancer Support Community North Texas

Cancer support community north texas is a non-profit organization that provides one of the most comprehensive, free of charge programs providing cancer support available in dallas, collin and tarrant counties.

Health
8
Cancer Support Community Greater San Gabriel Valley

Cancer support community uplifts and strengthens people impacted by cancer by providing support, fostering compassionate communities, and breaking down barriers to care.

—
9
Cancer Care Services

Cancer care services supports cancer patients, cares for caregivers, and empowers survivors to reduce the impact of cancer in tarrant county.

Health
10
Hope Connections for Cancer Support Inc

The mission of hope connections for cancer support inc. is to help people with cancer and their loved ones deal with the emotional and physical impact of cancer through participation in professionally facilitated programs of emotional…

Health
11
Cancer Support Community Valley Ventura/Santa Barbara Inc

Cancer support community valley/ventura/santa barbaras mission is to uplift and strengthen people impacted by cancer by providing support, fostering compassionate communities, and breaking down barriers to care.

—
12
Womens Cancer Resource Center

The Womens Cancer Resource Center improves equitable access to cancer information, support and care.

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Support Community of the Greater Lehigh Valley; the most unlike its peers is Indian Family Health Clinic of Great Falls 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

23 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 23 of the 25 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/23
Grantees still filing
20/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TUBA CITY REGIONAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION: $53,750 · HealthTUBA CITY REGIONAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATIONOrlando Health Central Inc: $50,000 · HealthOrlando Health Central IncINDIAN FAMILY HEALTH CLINIC OF GREAT FALLS INC: $37,500 · HealthINDIAN FAMILY HEALTH CLINIC OF GREAT FALLS INCCancer Support Community Arizona: $35,750 · HealthCancer Support Community ArizonaNAVAJO HOPI HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $33,337 · HealthNAVAJO HOPI HEALTH FOUNDATION INCHeartland Foundation: $28,750 · HealthHeartland FoundationKONA HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $28,750 · HealthKONA HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONTHE MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROMES FOUNDATION: $25,000 · HealthTHE MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROMES FOUNDATIONCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF THE GREATER LEHIGH VALLEY: $20,000 · HealthWHITMAN-WALKER CLINIC INC: $20,000 · Health+8 more: $63,450 · Health+8 moreCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY LOS ANGELES: $35,550 · OtherCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNI…NORTHWEST MEDICAL SPECIALTIES PLLC: $28,750 · OtherNORTHWEST MEDICAL SPEC…GETTYSBURG CANCER CENTER: $28,750 · OtherGETTYSBURG CANCER CENT…GILDA'S CLUB KENTUCKIANA INC: $6,525 · OtherGILDA'S CLUB KENTUCKIA…CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF GREATER ANN ARBOR: $5,500 · OtherCROSSROADS4HOPE: $20,000 · Human ServicesCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - GREATER CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY: $5,000 · Human Services
Health$396,287Other$105,075Human Services$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTUBA CITY REGIONAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION: $53,750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetOrlando Health Central Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINDIAN FAMILY HEALTH CLINIC OF GREAT FALLS INC: $37,500 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCancer Support Community Arizona: $35,750 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY LOS ANGELES: $35,550 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetNAVAJO HOPI HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $33,337 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetHeartland Foundation: $28,750 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetKONA HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $28,750 over 1y, 13% of budgetTHE MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROMES FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF THE GREATER LEHIGH VALLEY: $20,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetWHITMAN-WALKER CLINIC INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCROSSROADS4HOPE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY San Francisco Bay Area: $12,700 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCancer Support Community - Atlanta Inc: $10,500 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetGILDA'S CLUB KANSAS CITY: $10,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY INDIANA: $7,300 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY GREATER PHILADELPHIA: $6,700 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetGILDA'S CLUB KENTUCKIANA INC: $6,525 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY IOWA & NW ILLINOIS: $6,250 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF GREATER ANN ARBOR: $5,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRED DOOR COMMUNITY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY - GREATER CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetGILDA'S CLUB TWIN CITIES INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% 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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

McKesson Foundation I…The Steve Mihaylo and…The Pfizer Foundation…Chubb Charitable Foun…AbbVie FoundationGs Donor Advised Phil…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Charities Aid Foundat…American Endowment Fo…Network for GoodMorgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…
McKesson Foundation IncTX22.9× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: McKesson Foundation Inc · The Steve Mihaylo and Lois Mihaylo Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Chubb Charitable Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Endowment Foundation · Network for Good · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Cancer Support Community funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cancer Support Community. 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%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • CROSSROADS4HOPE: 1% of income from government
  • Orlando Health Central Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
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 25 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Cancer Support’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