Skip to content
Cascade Hemophilia Consortium at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Cascade Hemophilia Consortium

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$7.4M
Granted FY2025still arriving
30
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$850k
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 2024.

Health$35MYouth Development$2.1MRecreation & Sports$196k
02FY2025 · 30 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $168k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $1.2M
  • $250k+15 grants · $6.0M
$250,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$109M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan$850,000
Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute$493,990
Various$470,228
Greater Ohio Bleeding Disorder Foundation$442,646
Ohio State University Hemophilia Center$425,524
Hurley Medical Center$385,991
University Pediatricians$385,987
University of Michigan Hemophilia Treatment Center$378,545
Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan$356,906
Michigan State University$355,951
Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan$322,701
University of Cincinnati$298,671
Akron Children's Hospital$297,418
West Michigan Cancer CenterBronson Methodist Hospital$258,838
Indiana Hemophilia & Thrombosis Center$250,000
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 15%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 51% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 15%Northern Regional Bleeding Disorder Ctr: $288k → 7%Various: $470k → 14%Michigan State University: $448k → 16%Hurley Medical Center: $386k → 16%Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute: $537k → 21%Akron Children's Hospital: $297k → 13%Ohio State University Hemophilia Center: $486k → 15%Greater Ohio Bleeding Disorder Foundation: $443k → 17%Various: $418k → 14%Michigan State University: $356k → 16%Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute: $534k → 21%Ohio State University Hemophilia Center: $426k → 15%Various: $386k → 14%Michigan State University: $322k → 16%Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute: $494k → 21%Ohio State University Hemophilia Center: $397k → 15%Various: $380k → 14%Michigan State University: $283k → 16%University Pediatricians: $395k → 21%Ohio State University Hemophilia Center: $319k → 15%Various: $274k → 14%Michigan State University: $276k → 16%University Pediatricians: $386k → 21%Ohio State University Hemophilia Center: $310k → 15%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $1.1M → 14%University Pediatricians: $375k → 21%Ohio State University Hemophilia Center: $274k → 15%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $961k → 14%Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute: $311k → 21%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $898k → 14%University Pediatricians: $279k → 21%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $895k → 14%University Pediatricians: $274k → 21%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $858k → 14%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $850k → 14%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $850k → 14%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $850k → 14%University of Michigan Hemophilia Treatment Center: $379k → 14%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $638k → 14%University of Michigan Hemophilia Treatment Center: $326k → 14%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $419k → 14%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $357k → 14%University of Cincinnati: $299k → 16%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $356k → 14%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $323k → 14%Nationwide Children's Hospital: $315k → 15%Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $280k → 14%Various: $403k → 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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$45M · 33 repeat orgs$250k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +34% since the first grant, against -25% for those funded once.

33 repeat relationships: 27 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

33
1

Total granted

$45M
$250k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
-25%

Still filing today

42%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $250k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • HF
    Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan
    9× · 2017–2025 · $10M · revenue +42% · 35% of their budget
  • UP
    UNIVERSITY PEDIATRICIANS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.5M · revenue +34%
  • HF
    HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +69%

Funded once

  • IH
    INDIANA HEMOPHILIA & THROMBOSIS CENTER INC
    one grant, 2025 · $250k · revenue -25%
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
Children's Health Care

We champion the health needs of children and families. we are committed to improving children's health by providing the highest-quality, family centered care, advanced through research and education.

Health
2
Dana-Farber Children's Hospital Cancer Care Inc

To oversee, coordinate and support the Pediatric Oncology Programs at Boston Children's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc.

Health
3
Children's Hospital & Research Center At Oakland

The mission of children's hospital & research center at oakland is to protect and advance the health and well-being of children through clinical care, teaching and research.

Health
4
Indiana University Health Ball Memorial Physicians Inc

Lead the transformation of healthcare through quality, innovation & education, and make indiana one of the nation's healthiest states.

Health
5
Hemophilia Center of Western Pa

To provide expert comprehensive multidisciplinary care to patients with hemophilia and other bleeding and clotting disorders.

Health
6
National Bleeding Disorders Foundation

The national bleeding disorders foundation (formerly the national hemophilia foundation) is dedicated to finding cures for inheritable blood and bleeding disorders and to addressing and preventing the complications of these disorders…

—
7
Hemophilia Foundation of Md Inc

To provide services to hemophilia patients nad their families in the state of Maryland

Philanthropy
8
The Hemophilia Alliance Group Purchasing Organization

The hemophilia alliance provides member hemophilia treatment centers with resources and services to sustain the comprehensive care model for individuals with bleeding and clotting disorders.

Health
9
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
10
Trihealth Physician Institute

Provides the community necessary medical care through specialty physicians.

Health
11
Hartford HealthCare Medical Group Specialists Pllc

The Mission of Hartford HealthCare Medical Group Specialists, PLLC is to put the patients first, provide coordinated quality care and value, exceed the expectations of patients, providers, staff and the community that it serves.

Health
12
Northern Michigan Hematology and Oncology

Provide professional services for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and infectious disease and related conditions.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan; the most unlike its peers is Burr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State. 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

15 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. 15 of the 34 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
10/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Various: $2,960,540 · OtherVariousOhio State University Hemophilia Center: $2,797,562 · OtherOhio State University Hemophilia CenterAkron Children's Hospital: $1,959,666 · OtherAkron Children's HospitalNationwide Children's Hospital: $1,725,306 · OtherNationwide Children's HospitalUniversity of Michigan Hemophilia Treatment Center: $1,723,446 · OtherUniversity of Michigan Hemophilia Treatment CenterNorthern Regional Bleeding Disorder Ctr: $1,661,316 · OtherNorthern Regional Bleeding Disorder CtrUniversity Hospitals of ClevelandCase Western: $1,402,533 · OtherUniversity Hospitals of ClevelandCase WesternToledo Children's Hospital Northwest Ohio Hemophilia Treatment Center: $1,377,057 · OtherToledo Children's Hospital Northwest Ohio Hemophilia Tre…Hurley Medical Center: $1,351,620 · OtherHurley Medical CenterWest Central Ohio Hemophilia Center at Dayton Children's: $1,078,158 · OtherUniversity of Cincinnati: $1,058,272 · OtherWest Michigan Cancer CenterBronson Methodist Hospital: $866,506 · Other+8 more: $2,360,581 · Other+8 moreHemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $10,314,128 · HealthHemophilia Foundation of MichiganBARBARA ANN KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE: $2,674,423 · HealthBARBARA ANN KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTEUNIVERSITY PEDIATRICIANS: $2,502,327 · HealthUNIVERSITY PEDIATRICIANSHENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM: $1,459,483 · HealthHENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEMCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $930,781 · Health+8 more: $2,296,098 · Health+8 moreBurr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State: $2,438,478 · Youth Development
Other$22,322,563Health$20,177,240Youth Development$2,438,478

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 budgetHemophilia Foundation of Michigan: $10,314,128 over 9y, 35% of budgetBARBARA ANN KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE: $2,674,423 over 9y, 2.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY PEDIATRICIANS: $2,502,327 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetHENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM: $1,459,483 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $930,781 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER OHIO BLEEDING DISORDERS FOUNDATION: $596,771 over 7y, 27% of budgetHEMOPHILIA OF INDIANA INC: $382,500 over 9y, 5.0% of budgetWEST MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $324,590 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetFAMOHIO Inc: $296,493 over 7y, 35% of budgetNORTHWEST OHIO HEMOPHILIA FOUNDATION: $282,234 over 9y, 49% of budgetSOUTHWESTERN OHIO HEMOPHILIA FOUNDATION: $231,361 over 8y, 24% of budgetTRI-STATE BLEEDING DISORDER FOUNDATION: $211,339 over 9y, 16% of budgetThe Children's Mercy Hospital: $103,310 over 4y, 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.

  • Who funds Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan ↗
  • Who funds BARBARA ANN KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY PEDIATRICIANS ↗
  • Who funds Burr Oak 4-H Club - Michigan State ↗
  • Who funds HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds GREATER OHIO BLEEDING DISORDERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HEMOPHILIA OF INDIANA INC ↗
  • Who funds WEST MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER ↗
  • Who funds FAMOHIO Inc ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWEST OHIO HEMOPHILIA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds INDIANA HEMOPHILIA & THROMBOSIS CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHWESTERN OHIO HEMOPHILIA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TRI-STATE BLEEDING DISORDER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds The Children's Mercy Hospital ↗

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.

The Hemophilia Allian…Colburn-Keenan Founda…National Bleeding Dis…The Hemophilia Allian…FAMOHIO IncThe Pfizer Foundation…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Hemophilia Alliance FoundationFL22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Hemophilia Alliance Foundation · Colburn-Keenan Foundation Inc · National Bleeding Disorders Foundation · The Hemophilia Alliance Group Purchasing Organization · FAMOHIO Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Cascade Hemophilia Consortium funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Cascade Hemophilia Consortium. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%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 · 0–15%
    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 34 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-PF 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 Cascade Hemophilia Consortium’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