Skip to content
Humor to Fight the Tumor Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Humor to Fight the Tumor Foundation

To improve the quality of life for individuals and families affected by brain tumors.

$460k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$200k
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Health$2.3MHuman Services$100k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $60k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $400k
$15,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$157k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GILDA'S CLUB MINNESOTA$200,000
PINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION$100,000
AMERICAN BRAIN TUMOR ASSOCIATION$100,000
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION$15,000
ANGEL FOUNDATION$15,000
CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION$15,000
MAYO CLINICS$15,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $174k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%PINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION: $100k → 11%PINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION: $20k → 11%PINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION: $20k → 11%PINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION: $17k → 11%PINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION: $17k → 11%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 5 repeat orgs$205k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
2

Total granted

$1.7M
$190k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+6%
+17%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationHuman 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

  • American Brain Tumor Association
    5× · 2021–2025 · $550k · revenue +19%
  • GC
    GILDA'S CLUB TWIN CITIES INC
    3× · 2021–2025 · $234k · revenue +6%
  • AF
    ANGEL FOUNDATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $89k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE
    one grant, 2024 · $175k · revenue 0%
  • AH
    ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM
    one grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue +17%
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
Minnesota Medical Association

To be the leading voice of medicine to make minnesota the healthiest state and the best place to practice.

—
2
Northern Michigan Hematology and Oncology

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

Health
3
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
4
Minnesota Hospital Association

Advance the health of individuals and communities through leadership, advocacy and collaboration on behalf of minnesota hospitals and health systems. vision: minnesotans are healthy and have access to the right care at the right time in…

Community Improvement
5
Mayo Clinic Group Return

To inspire hope and contribute to health and well-being by providing the best care to every patient through integrated clinical practice, education, and research.

Health
6
Children's Physicians

Children's physicians delivers the highest quality pediatric primary care while supporting education and research.

Health
7
Minnesota Hospital Foundation

The minnesota hospital foundation works on strategies that include data-led quality and safety improvement, education, research, training and leadership to improve the health of minnesotans.

—
8
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
9
Gillette Children's Hospital Foundation

The mission of Gillette Children's Hospital Foundation (Foundation) is to raise money, build awareness, and develop relationships in support of the patient care, education, and research activities of Gillette Children's Specialty…

Health
10
Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital Inc

Mission: johns hopkins all children's hospital (all children's), a member of johns hopkins medicine, strives to provide the highest quality care to improve the health of our entire community through innovation, collaboration, service…

Health
11
University of Maryland Oncology Associates Pa

Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…

Health
12
Unmc Physicians

Our mission is to lead the world in transforming lives to create a healthy future for all individuals and communities through premier educational programs, innovative research and extraordinary patient care.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Health Care Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Children's Health Care. 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.

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
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MAYO CLINIC: $465,000 · HealthMAYO CLINICGILDA'S CLUB TWIN CITIES INC: $234,000 · HealthGILDA'S CLUB TWIN CITIES INCCHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE: $175,000 · HealthCHILDREN'S HEALTH CAREANGEL FOUNDATION: $89,000 · HealthANGEL FOUNDATION+2 more: $30,000 · HealthUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $689,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATI…American Brain Tumor Association: $550,000 · OtherAmerican Brain Tumor Asso…PINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION: $174,000 · Human Services
Health$993,000Education$689,000Other$550,000Human Services$174,000

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 budgetUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION: $689,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Brain Tumor Association: $550,000 over 5y, 2.2% of budgetMAYO CLINIC: $465,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetGILDA'S CLUB TWIN CITIES INC: $234,000 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetCHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE: $175,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION: $174,000 over 5y, 3.2% of budgetANGEL FOUNDATION: $89,000 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM: $15,000 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.

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.

Saint Paul & Minnesot…Xcel Energy FoundationThe Minneapolis Found…Mightycause Charitabl…National Philanthropi…The Blackbaud Giving …Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Saint Paul & Minnesota FoundationMN13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Humor to Fight the Tumor Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Humor to Fight the Tumor Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%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 · 0–10%
    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 Humor to Fight the Tumor Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Humor to Fight the Tumor Foundation 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Humor to Fight the Tumor’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