· Public charity
National Marrow Donor Program
We save lives through cellular therapy.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $7,628,216 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $7,958,409 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $330,193 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
- $250k+1 grant · $7.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NMDP FOUNDATION | $7,586,216 |
| CORD BLOOD ASSOCIATION | $25,000 |
| HOSA INC | $9,000 |
| SICKLE CELL CONSORTIUM | $8,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY18–18, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +65% since the first grant, against +4% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- NFNMDP FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · $34M · revenue +106% · 47% of their budget
- CBCORD BLOOD ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION2× · 2023–2024 · $50k · revenue ×11 · 30% of their budget
- AAAmerican Association of Blood Banks2× · 2017–2018 · $33k · revenue +2%
Funded once
- CFCURA FOUNDATIONone grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue -96%
- SCSickle Cell Disease Association of America Incone grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue -32%
- OEOPTUMHEALTH EDUCATIONone grant, 2018 · $15k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Coordinate the accelerated advancement and improved awareness of standards that address teh rapidly evolving needs of the global regernative medicine and cell-based drug discovery community and facilitate the avialabilty of life-changing…
As one of the most preeminent and comprehensive blood centers in theworld, nybc operates under a four-part mission. for more information,see sch. o and part iii, 4a-c.
The american thrombosis and hemostasis network (athn) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the lives of people affected by bleeding and clotting disorders. we're using technology to secure data, advance knowledge, transform…
The south texas blood & tissue center supplies blood to more than 100 hospitals throughout texas and supports tissue, research/new therapies, and umbilical cord blood/birth tissue donations.
To advance and disseminate the science and practice of hepatology, and to promote liver health and quality patient care.
Astct is an international professional membership association of more than 3000 physicians, investigators and other health care professionals from more than 45 countries, who are dedicated to improving the application and success of blood…
Improve the bone marrow transplant process for sickle cell disease.
For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…
The international society for stem cell research is an independent, nonprofit organization. the mission is to promote excellence in stem cell research and applications to human health.
To provide education, screenings, and counseling for persons suffering from sickle cell disease and to stimulate interest and further research for curing the disease.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cord Blood Association and the most unlike its peers is Pridefest Pride Fest. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 19 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds NMDP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CORD BLOOD ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CORD BLOOD ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CURA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds American Association of Blood Banks ↗
- Who funds SICKLE CELL CONSORTIUM INC ↗
- Who funds TRANSPLANT FINANCIAL COORDINATORS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Sickle Cell Disease Association of America Inc ↗
- Who funds SICKLE CELL 101 ↗
- Who funds PARENT'S GUIDE TO CORD BLOOD FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL BONE MARROW TRANSPLANT LINK ↗
- Who funds HEALTH OCCUPATIONS STUDENTS OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds BLOOD & MARROW TRANSPLANT INFORMATION NETWORK ↗
- Who funds ONCOLOGY NURSING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PRIDEFEST PRIDE FEST ↗
- Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization National Marrow Donor Program funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- American Association of Blood Banks — 9% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.