Skip to content
International Cancer Advocacy Network at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

International Cancer Advocacy Network

Ican's mission is two-fold: to optimize stage iv cancer patient survival and work to attain the highest possible quality of life.

$360k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$125k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Health$1.0MScience & Tech$110k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $325k
$50,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$5.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HEYMACH LAB-MD ANDERSON CANCER CNTR$125,000
ECK LAB-DANA-FARBER INSTITUE$100,000
JOHN MINNA LAB-U-TX SOUTHWESTERN$50,000
O'CONNOR LAB-CNTR CELLULAR IMMUNO$50,000
CITY OF HOPE CANCER CNTR DUARTE$25,000
JACKIE BANANA FOUNDATION$10,000
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 90% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%THE BROAD INSTITUTEMITHARVARD: $50k → 8%ECK LAB-DANA-FARBER INSTITUE: $100k → 16%TIMOTHY BURNS LAB-UNIV PITTSBURGH: $40k → 11%O'CONNOR LAB-CNTR CELLULAR IMMUNO: $53k → 22%CITY OF HOPE CANCER CNTR DUARTE: $25k → 14%LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $38k → 17%JOHN MINNA LAB-UT SOUTHWESTERN LABS: $70k → 14%HEYMACH LAB-MD ANDERSON CANCER CNTR: $150k → 16%JACKIE BANANA FOUNDATION: $10k → 8%BAYLIN LAB-JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $20k → 19%COV-IRT: $20k → 8%STEGMAIER LAB-DANA-FARBER INSTITUE: $20k → 16%O'CONNOR LAB-CNTR CELLULAR IMMUNO: $53k → 22%LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $38k → 17%JOHN MINNA LAB-U-TX SOUTHWESTERN: $50k → 14%HEYMACH LAB-MD ANDERSON CANCER CNTR: $125k → 16%O'CONNOR LAB-CNTR CELLULAR IMMUNO: $50k → 22%HEYMACH LAB-MD ANDERSON CANCER CNTR: $100k → 16%O'CONNOR LAB-CNTR CELLULAR IMMUNO: $25k → 22%HEYMACH LAB-MD ANDERSON CANCER CNTR: $100k → 16%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $10k → 16%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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$680k · 3 repeat orgs$285k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +62% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
5

Total granted

$680k
$200k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
+26%

Still filing today

67%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $85k went to new ones.

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

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

’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

  • UA
    UTMD ANDERSON
    4× · 2021–2024 · $485k
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    2× · 2021–2024 · $120k · revenue +62%
  • LC
    LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $75k · revenue +12%

Funded once

  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTE
    one grant, 2023 · $70k
  • TB
    THE BROAD INSTITUTEMITHARVARD
    one grant, 2020 · $50k
  • UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
    one grant, 2023 · $40k · revenue +14%
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

7 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. 7 of the 12 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UTMD ANDERSON: $485,100 · OtherUTMD ANDERSONTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTE: $70,000 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTETHE BROAD INSTITUTEMITHARVARD: $50,000 · OtherTHE BROAD INSTITUTEMITHARVARD+2 more: $30,000 · OtherDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $120,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institu…LUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $75,000 · HealthLUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUND…UT SOUTHWESTERN MONCRIEF CANCER CENTER MONCRIEF CANCER INSTITUTE: $50,000 · HealthUT SOUTHWESTERN MONCRIEF C…CITY OF HOPE: $25,000 · HealthCITY OF HOPETRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $180,000 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERS…UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $40,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURG…JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $20,000 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSIT…
Other$635,100Health$270,000Education$240,000

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 budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $180,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $120,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLUNG CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetUT SOUTHWESTERN MONCRIEF CANCER CENTER MONCRIEF CANCER INSTITUTE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCITY OF HOPE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $20,000 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization International Cancer Advocacy Network funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Cancer Advocacy Network. 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of 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 · 0–20%
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 12 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 International Cancer Advocacy Network’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