Skip to content

· Public charity

JoAnn B Ficke Cancer Foundation

To raise cancer awareness and to raise funds for cancer research and treatment

$157k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$39k
Largest
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$1.2M
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$33,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$25k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Brent Eley Foundation$39,000
Cancer League of Colorado$39,000
Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation$33,000
Children's Hospital$33,000
Colorado Ovarian Cancer Alliance$13,000
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 (FY18–25, $251k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation: $35k → 12%Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation: $33k → 12%Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation: $33k → 12%Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation: $30k → 12%Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation: $30k → 12%Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation: $30k → 12%Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation: $30k → 12%Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation: $30k → 12%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.
$1.3M · 7 repeat orgs$3k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
2

Total granted

$1.3M
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
+40%

Still filing today

71%
100%

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
HealthHuman ServicesEducationOther
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

  • CL
    CANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $328k · revenue +6%
  • RO
    RAY OF HOPE CANCER FOUNDATION
    8× · 2018–2025 · $251k · revenue +14%
  • CC
    COLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE
    8× · 2017–2025 · $103k · revenue +97%

Funded once

  • BC
    BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC
    one grant, 2018 · $2k · revenue -18%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $500 · revenue +40%
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
Targeting Resistance in Cancer Cooperative
Health
2
Cancer League of Colorado Foundation Inc

Cancer League of Colorado Foundation periodically provides funds to Cancer League of Colorado, a related 501(c)(3) entity, which through its committees and advisory boards allocates funds in support of cancer research and cancer patient…

Health
3
The Colorado Health Foundation
Health
4
Commonwealth Cancer Consortium Inc

Break through cancer is a foundation dedicated to supporting translational research in the most difficult to treat cancers. our partner organizations are among the top cancer research centers and together, represent some of the most…

—
5
Brca Research and Cure Alliance
Health
6
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

To cure cf and provide all people with cf the opportunity to lead long, fulfilling lives by funding research and drug development, partnering with the cf community, and advancing high-quality, specialized care.

Health
7
Cancer Resource Centers of Mendo Co

Cancer education, prevention, and patient navigation

Health
8
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
9
Curebound

Curebound's mission is to accelerate cancer research and save lives. we raise and invest strategic funding for innovative adult and pediatric cancer research with one vision: cures in our lifetime.

Health
10
Northern Utah Cancer Foundation
—
11
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Fdn Group

Susan g. komen 's mission is to save lives by meeting the most critical needs in our communities & investing in breakthrough research to prevent & cure breast cancer.

—
12
Lung Cancer Research Foundation

The mission of the lung cancer research foundation is to improve lung cancer outcomes by funding research for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure of lung cancer.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ray of Hope Cancer Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Blood Cancer United Inc. 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. 9 of the 10 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INC: $328,000 · HealthCANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INCBRENT ELEY FOUNDATION: $183,000 · HealthBRENT ELEY FOUNDATIONCOLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE: $103,000 · HealthCOLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCEColorado Gynecologic Cancer Alliance: $86,000 · HealthColorado Gynecologic Cancer Alliance+1 more: $2,000 · HealthChildren's Hospital: $251,000 · OtherChildren's HospitalROCKY MOUNTAIN CANCER CENTERS FOUNDATION: $135,000 · OtherROCKY MOUNTAIN CANCER CENTERS F…RAY OF HOPE CANCER FOUNDATION: $251,000 · Human ServicesRAY OF HOPE CANCER F…COLORADO GIVES FOUNDATION: $60,000 · PhilanthropyUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $500 · Education
Health$702,000Other$386,000Human Services$251,000Philanthropy$60,000Education$500

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 budgetCANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INC: $328,000 over 8y, 6.3% of budgetRAY OF HOPE CANCER FOUNDATION: $251,000 over 8y, 4.8% of budgetBRENT ELEY FOUNDATION: $183,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN CANCER CENTERS FOUNDATION: $135,000 over 7y, 42% of budgetCOLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE: $103,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetColorado Gynecologic Cancer Alliance: $86,000 over 8y, 3.3% of budgetCOLORADO GIVES FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $500 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.

  • Who funds CANCER LEAGUE OF COLORADO INC ↗
  • Who funds RAY OF HOPE CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BRENT ELEY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN CANCER CENTERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds COLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds Colorado Gynecologic Cancer Alliance ↗
  • Who funds COLORADO GIVES FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Colorado Gives FoundationCO13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Colorado Gives 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 JoAnn B Ficke Cancer Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from JoAnn B Ficke Cancer Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–5%
    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 JoAnn B Ficke Cancer Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to JoAnn B Ficke Cancer 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 10 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 JoAnn B Ficke Cancer’s filings →

    More from the funding graph