Skip to content
Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research

To provide funding for cancer research

$56M
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$27M
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Health$247MPhilanthropy$359k
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $300k
  • $250k+6 grants · $56M
$7,500,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$51M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INC$27,110,000
MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER$8,000,000
SIDNEY KIMMEL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER$8,000,000
MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER$7,500,000
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-KOCH INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH$2,500,000
DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC$2,500,000
MASSEY CANCER CENTER$242,186
THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$57,450
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 54% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $2.5M → 7%COMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INC: $28.5M → 8%MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $8.0M → 17%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $7.5M → 16%THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $57k → 9%MASSEY CANCER CENTER: $405k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA RECTOR & VISITORS: $300k → 22%SIDNEY KIMMEL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $8.0M → 19%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $2.5M → 7%COMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INC: $27.1M → 8%MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $7.0M → 17%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $7.5M → 16%THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $57k → 9%MASSEY CANCER CENTER: $242k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA RECTOR & VISITORS: $300k → 22%SIDNEY KIMMEL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $8.0M → 19%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $2.5M → 7%COMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INC: $25.6M → 8%MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $7.0M → 17%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $5.0M → 16%THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $50k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA RECTOR & VISITORS: $254k → 22%SIDNEY KIMMEL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $8.0M → 19%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $2.0M → 7%COMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INC: $2.2M → 8%MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $7.0M → 17%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $5.0M → 16%THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $50k → 9%SIDNEY KIMMEL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $8.0M → 19%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $2.0M → 7%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-KOCH INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $2.5M → 8%MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $7.0M → 17%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $5.0M → 16%SIDNEY KIMMEL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $8.0M → 19%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $2.0M → 7%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-KOCH INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $2.5M → 8%MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $6.0M → 17%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $3.8M → 16%SIDNEY KIMMEL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $6.0M → 19%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $1.9M → 7%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-KOCH INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $2.5M → 8%MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $5.3M → 17%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $1.9M → 16%SIDNEY KIMMEL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $2.0M → 19%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-KOCH INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $2.0M → 8%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-KOCH INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $2.0M → 8%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-KOCH INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $2.0M → 8%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-KOCH INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $1.9M → 8%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.
$231M · 7 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
0

Total granted

$231M
$0

Still filing today

57%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
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

  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $48M · revenue +64%
  • MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER
    8× · 2017–2024 · $47M · revenue +121%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    8× · 2017–2024 · $15M · revenue +162%

Funded once

    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
    04the grantee network

    6 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. 6 of the 9 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)
    0
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    6/6
    Grantees still filing
    5/6
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    COMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INC: $83,383,774 · OtherCOMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INCUTMD ANDERSON: $35,625,000 · OtherUTMD ANDERSON+2 more: $1,507,817 · OtherJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $48,000,000 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITYMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $15,375,000 · EducationMassachusetts Institute of Te…MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $47,250,000 · HealthMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CAN…Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $15,375,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute…THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $358,900 · Philanthropy
    Other$120,516,591Education$63,375,000Health$62,625,000Philanthropy$358,900

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

    25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INC: $83,383,774 over 4y, 94% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $48,000,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $47,250,000 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $15,375,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $15,375,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetTHE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $358,900 over 8y, 0.1% 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 COMMONWEALTH CANCER CONSORTIUM INC ↗
    • Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
    • Who funds MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER ↗
    • Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
    • Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
    • Who funds THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗

    How much its grantees rely on government

    Each dot is one organization Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
    • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
    • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
    • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research?

    Find your warmest path to Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research 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 9 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research’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