Skip to content
City of Hope National Medical Center at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

City of Hope National Medical Center

To make hope a reality for all touched by cancer and diabetes.

$8.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$8.0M
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$37MFood & Nutrition$73kHuman Services$20kYouth Development$10kCommunity Improvement$10k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$8,000,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.4B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF HOPE MEDICAL FOUNDATION$8,000,000
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 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%The Translational Genomics Research Institute: $611k → 11%OC ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITY ALLI: $10k → 10%City of Hope Medical Foundation: $8.0M → 12%Public Health Foundation Enterprises Inc: $15k → 14%California Health Foundation and Trust: $587k → 11%CALIFORNIA HEALTH FOUNDATION TRUST: $951k → 12%ECO URBAN GARDENS: $45k → 14%THE TRANSLATIONAL GENOMICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $517k → 11%California Health Foundation Trust: $691k → 12%ECO URBAN GARDENS: $20k → 14%CALIFORNIA HEALTH FOUNDATION TRUST: $643k → 12%ANTELOPE VALLEY PARTNERS FOR HEALTH: $10k → 14%CALIFORNIA HEALTH FOUNDATION TRUST: $340k → 12%Plnd Parenthood Pasadena San Gabriel Valley: $10k → 14%CALIFORNIA HEALTH FOUNDATION TRUST: $241k → 12%City of Hope Medical Foundation: $8.0M → 14%CITY OF HOPE MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $8.0M → 14%CITY OF HOPE MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $8.0M → 14%The Translational Genomics Research Institute: $500k → 14%NATIONAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: $15k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$45M · 7 repeat orgs$108k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
8

Total granted

$45M
$108k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
+56%

Still filing today

100%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
HealthFood & NutritionPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementYouth 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

  • CO
    CITY OF HOPE MEDICAL FOUNDATION
    5× · 2020–2025 · $33M · revenue +71%
  • TT
    THE TRANSLATIONAL GENOMICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
    3× · 2020–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +2%
  • Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley Inc
    2× · 2019–2021 · $701k · revenue +103%

Funded once

  • LF
    LYTE FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2023 · $25k
  • FU
    FOOTHILL UNITY CENTER INC
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +7%
  • NH
    NATIONAL HEALTH FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue +125%
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
Asian Pacific Health Care Venture Inc

Asian Pacific Health Care Venture, Inc. is a family of community health centers whose mission is to be the medical home for our patients by providing personalized, quality health care services in a culturally accessible manner.

—
2
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network

To promote health equity by advocating for public policies and sufficient resources to address the health needs of communities of color.

Health
3
Apla Health & Wellness

Apla health restores dignity and trust within underserved communities by providing world-class lgbtq+ empowering healthcare, hiv specialty care, food, housing and other essential support services.

Health
4
Asian Health Services

Asian Health Services (AHS) provides a continuum of medical care, mental health care, dental care and other healthcare services for all, including health education; perinatal services; behavioral health; family and youth services;…

Health
5
Planned Parenthood California Central Coast

To improve our communities' sexual and reproductive health outcomes through health care, education, and advocacy.

Health
6
East Valley Community Health Center Inc

East valley community health center's mission is to provide access to excellent health care while engaging and empowering our patients, employees and partners to improve their well-being and health of our communities.

—
7
Asian and Pacific Islander Wellness Center Inc

Our core belief at San Francisco Community Health Center is that everyone deserves to be healthy and needs access to the highest quality health care. Our mission is to transform lives by advancing health, wellness and equality.

Health
8
Via Care Community Health Center

Providing health care services to the poor and underserved of los angeles.

Health
9
Project Open Hand

Project Open Hand's mission is to improve health outcomes and quality of life by providing nutritious meals to the sick and vulnerable, caring for and educating our community.

Food & Nutrition
10
Gardner Family Health Network Inc

Gardner Health Services (GHS) is dedicated to providing high quality, comprehensive medical and mental healthcare, including prevention and education, early intervention, treatment and advocacy services which are affordable, respectful,…

Health
11
Neighborhood House Assn

Developing children, families, and future leaders of our communities through empowerment, education, and wellness from our house to yours. this is done by leading the way in developing confident, self-sufficient, healthy families and…

Human Services
12
Center for Human Development

Center for human development is a california non-profit corporation dedicated to creating opportunities for people to realize their full potential. chd operates a spectrum of services for at-risk youth, individuals, families and…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Antelope Valley Partners for Health; the most unlike its peers is Eco Urban Gardens. 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

13 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. 13 of the 15 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
11/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY OF HOPE MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $32,500,000 · HealthCITY OF HOPE MEDICAL FOUNDATIONTHE TRANSLATIONAL GENOMICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $1,715,150 · Health+3 more: $725,747 · HealthCALIFORNIA HEALTH FOUNDATION AND TRUST: $10,228,197 · PhilanthropyCALIFORNIA HEALTH FOUNDAT…PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION ENTERPRISES INC: $25,000 · OtherLYTE FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · OtherFOOTHILL UNITY CENTER INC: $19,500 · OtherMONTCLAIR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherINLAND VALLEY COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: $10,000 · OtherGROWING HOPE GARDENS: $8,420 · OtherEco Urban Gardens: $65,000 · Food & NutritionANTELOPE VALLEY PARTNERS FOR HEALTH: $20,400 · Community ImprovementRAINBOW LABS MENTORING INC: $10,000 · Youth Development
Health$34,940,897Philanthropy$10,228,197Other$97,920Food & Nutrition$65,000Community Improvement$20,400Youth Development$10,000

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 budgetCITY OF HOPE MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $32,500,000 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetCALIFORNIA HEALTH FOUNDATION AND TRUST: $10,228,197 over 6y, 19% of budgetTHE TRANSLATIONAL GENOMICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $1,715,150 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetPlanned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley Inc: $700,747 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetEco Urban Gardens: $65,000 over 2y, 30% of budgetPUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION ENTERPRISES INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetANTELOPE VALLEY PARTNERS FOR HEALTH: $20,400 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFOOTHILL UNITY CENTER INC: $19,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNATIONAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetRAINBOW LABS MENTORING INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetORANGE COUNTY ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGROWING HOPE GARDENS: $8,420 over 1y, 5.3% 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.

Kaiser Foundation Hos…California Community …The Ralph M Parsons F…The Rose Hills Founda…Los Angeles Regional …The Ahmanson Foundati…Weingart FoundationCommunity PartnersThe California Endowm…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCA22.6× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · California Community Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · Los Angeles Regional Food Bank · The Ahmanson Foundation · Weingart Foundation · Community Partners · The California Endowment · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 City of Hope National Medical Center funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from City of Hope National Medical Center. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 15 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 City of Hope National Medical Center’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