Skip to content
Lazarex Cancer Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Lazarex Cancer Foundation

We strive to improve cancer health outcomes, FDA cancer clinical trial diversity and enrollment, and patient access to care by providing assistance with clinical trial navigation, reimbursing trial related travel costs, and partnering with at-risk communities to mobilize resources.

$569k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$214k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$2.9MEducation$1.8MHuman Services$327kCommunity Improvement$172kEmployment$140kYouth Development$99kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $506,016, the rows itemized in this filing. The $568,857 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $62,841 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $495k
$60,138
Median grant
2
States reached
$690k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
University of Southern Cal$214,300
Monument Crisis Center$105,138
Monument Impact$60,138
Village Community Center$60,138
Drexel University$55,000
Center for Human Development$11,302
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 (FY23–25, $180k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%Monument Crisis Center: $105k → 9%Monument Crisis Center: $45k → 9%Monument Crisis Center: $30k → 9%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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.8M · 7 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +3% since the first grant, against -64% for those funded once.

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

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
6

Total granted

$2.8M
$2.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+3%
-64%

Still filing today

71%
17%

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
EducationHuman ServicesEmploymentHealthOther
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

  • DU
    DREXEL UNIVERSITY
    7× · 2018–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +7%
  • MC
    MONUMENT CRISIS CENTER
    3× · 2023–2025 · $180k · revenue +8%
  • MI
    MONUMENT IMPACT
    3× · 2023–2025 · $140k · revenue +2%

Funded once

  • MG
    MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
    one grant, 2017 · $1.2M
  • UN
    USC Norris Cancer Center
    one grant, 2023 · $377k
  • UA
    UTMD ANDERSON
    one grant, 2021 · $174k
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
Southern California University of Health Sciences

The mission of southern california university of health sciences (scu) is to educate students as competent, caring and successful practitioners of integrative healthcare. the university is committed to providing excellence in academics,…

Education
2
University of Miami

See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.

Education
3
New York University

Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes. nyu's primary missions are education, research and scholarship, and patient care.

Education
4
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

Stanford university is one of a select group of american universities that have achieved eminence in both undergraduate and graduate education and research - cont'd sch o.

Education
5
Marshall B Ketchum University

To educate caring, inspired health care professionals who are prepared to deliver collaborative, patient-centric health care in an interprofessional environment.

Education
6
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
7
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
8
University of Chicago Medical Center

Our mission at the university of chicago medicine is to provide superior health care through rigorous research, innovative education, and comprehensive care and healing. in partnership with our colleagues, we pursue life-changing…

Health
9
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
10
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

We educate the next generation of leaders to improve the health of our society.

Education
11
Washington University

The washington university is a co-educational, nondenominational university with a long and distinguished history of teaching, research and (cont'd on schedule o)

Education
12
Pomona College

Throughout its history, pomona college has educated men and women of exceptional promise. we gather individuals, regardless of financial circumstances, into a small residential community that is strongly rooted in southern california yet…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of California San Francisco Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Drexel University. 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

8 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. 8 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DREXEL UNIVERSITY: $1,516,983 · EducationDREXEL UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $697,050 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $384,699 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION+1 more: $86,400 · EducationMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $1,178,881 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATEDUSC Norris Cancer Center: $376,690 · OtherUSC Norris Cancer CenterIndividual grant recipient: $347,610 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUTMD ANDERSON: $174,129 · OtherUTMD ANDERSONVillage Community Center: $146,887 · OtherVillage Community CenterCENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: $99,061 · OtherUniv of Texas MD Anderson: $87,065 · OtherUS Oncology Research LLC: $86,400 · OtherMONUMENT CRISIS CENTER: $180,145 · Human ServicesMONUMENT IMPACT: $139,685 · EmploymentTHE LEONARD & MADLYN ABRAMSON FAMILY CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $90,133 · Health
Education$2,685,132Other$2,496,723Human Services$180,145Employment$139,685Health$90,133

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 budgetDREXEL UNIVERSITY: $1,516,983 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $697,050 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $384,699 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMONUMENT CRISIS CENTER: $180,145 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetMONUMENT IMPACT: $139,685 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetCENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: $99,061 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetTHE LEONARD & MADLYN ABRAMSON FAMILY CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $90,133 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $86,400 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 DREXEL UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MONUMENT CRISIS CENTER ↗
  • Who funds MONUMENT IMPACT ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds THE LEONARD & MADLYN ABRAMSON FAMILY CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Lazarex Cancer Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lazarex Cancer 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 Lazarex Cancer’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