Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Nccn Foundation

Through philanthropy, the NCCN FOUNDATION empowers people through knowledge and advances the mission of nccn to define and advance quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care and prevention so all people can live better lives.

$856k
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
10
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

Health$2.1MScience & Tech$1.5MEducation$538k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $59k
  • $50k–250k11 grants · $800k
$50,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$9.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION$150,000
INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH$100,000
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER$100,000
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$99,905
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICINE COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER$50,000
MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER$50,000
BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CITY OF HOPE CITY OF HOPE$50,000
REGENTS OF UNIV CALIFORNIA SF$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM$50,000
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY IF WISCONSIN SYSTEM$50,000
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO$44,665
HEALTH RESEARCH INC$14,250
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 73% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%MASS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $50k → 16%MAYO CLINIC: $100k → 9%INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $100k → 7%FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER: $50k → 22%REGENTS OF UNIV CALIFORNIA SF: $50k → 10%BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CITY OF HOPE CITY OF HOPE: $100k → 14%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $50k → 17%UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER: $50k → 14%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $98k → 16%H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $50k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $100k → 14%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $50k → 21%THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY IF WISCONSIN SYSTEM: $50k → 10%ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL: $100k → 17%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $50k → 8%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $100k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $50k → 9%NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM: $50k → 14%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERISTY: $50k → 19%MAYO CLINIC: $50k → 9%THE TRUSTEES OF THE U OF PENN: $125k → 22%CITY OF HOPE: $50k → 14%UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER: $50k → 14%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $50k → 16%H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $50k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $50k → 14%THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY IF WISCONSIN SYSTEM: $50k → 10%ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL: $71k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $50k → 8%FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $50k → 9%NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM: $50k → 14%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERISTY: $50k → 19%THE TRUSTEES OF THE U OF PENN: $96k → 22%BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CITY OF HOPE CITY OF HOPE: $50k → 14%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $50k → 16%H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $50k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $50k → 14%ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL: $50k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $49k → 8%FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $50k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICINE COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER: $50k → 14%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERISTY: $50k → 19%BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CITY OF HOPE CITY OF HOPE: $50k → 14%THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $50k → 16%ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL: $49k → 17%BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CITY OF HOPE CITY OF HOPE: $50k → 14%BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CITY OF HOPE CITY OF HOPE: $50k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

WA
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OH
PA
CT
CA
UT
CO
MO
MD
TN
NC
AL
GA
TX
FL

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$2.8M · 17 repeat orgs$564k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +38% since the first grant, against -25% for the ones you funded once.

17 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
5

Total granted

$2.8M
$250k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
-25%

Still filing today

47%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $314k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20’21’23’24
HealthEducationRecreation & SportsOther

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

  • ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC
    6× · 2017–2023 · $270k · revenue +145%
  • THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION
    4× · 2020–2024 · $200k · revenue +38%
  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
    4× · 2020–2023 · $150k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYgraduated
    3× · 2018–2022 · $50k · revenue +76%
  • CITY OF HOPE
    2× · 2017–2018 · $50k · revenue -25%
  • MG
    MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
    2× · 2017–2018 · $50k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o

Health
2
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
3
The Johns Hopkins Hospital

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…

Health
4
Rush University Medical Center

The mission of Rush is to improve the health of the individuals and diverse communities we serve through the integration of outstanding patient care, education, research and community partnerships.

Health
5
William Marsh Rice University

As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…

Education
6
University of Miami

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

Education
7
Case Western Reserve University

Case Western Reserve University is an independent, research-oriented university with broadly based strengths in health, including medicine, nursing and dentistry; in engineering; in the arts and sciences; and in law, management and social…

Education
8
University of Southern California

The central mission of the university of southern california is the development of human beings and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit. the principal means by which our mission is…

Education
9
Drexel University

Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…

Education
10
Thomas Jefferson University

Thomas jefferson university ("tju") is a comprehensive university with preeminence in transdisciplinary, experiential professional education, research and discovery, delivering exceptional value for the 21st century students with…

Education
11
Cornell University

Education, research, medical services and other public services.

Education
12
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Johns Hopkins University and the most unlike its peers is Ohio State University Research Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyCancer Support ServicesCommunity College Foundatio…Health Access Advocacy and …Faith-Based Liberal Arts Co…Community Foundations
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 71 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%0%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%5%10–20yr16%10%20–35yr13%14%35–55yr16%71%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%0%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%2%10–20yr16%19%20–35yr13%9%35–55yr16%70%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 9% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
9%
3/32
the rest of the field
13%
240,393/1,819,533

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

20 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 20 of the 32 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/20
Grantees still filing
13/20
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

UTMD ANDERSON — $248,352 · OtherUTMD ANDERSONREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN — $244,858 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANUNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM — $200,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAMUNIVERSITY OF UTAH — $149,139 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF UTAHOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION — $147,624 · OtherOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATIONREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO — $144,665 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADOFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER — $100,000 · OtherFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTERTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTE — $99,785 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL C…UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON — $97,360 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON+5 more — $250,000 · Other+5 moreBECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE CITY OF HOPE — $300,000 · HealthBECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE C…ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC — $270,377 · HealthST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITA…THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION — $200,000 · HealthTHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATIONMAYO CLINIC — $150,000 · HealthMAYO CLINICH LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC — $150,000 · HealthH LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RES…The Institute For Cancer Research — $100,000 · HealthThe Institute For Cancer ResearchCITY OF HOPE — $50,000 · HealthFox Chase Cancer Center Foundation — $50,000 · Health+1 more — $14,250 · HealthTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY — $248,580 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE…TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA — $246,182 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY O…JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY — $150,000 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITYYale University — $100,000 · EducationYale UniversityVanderbilt University — $100,000 · EducationVanderbilt UniversityDUKE UNIVERSITY — $97,138 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITYWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY — $50,000 · EducationUniversity of Chicago — $50,000 · EducationNorthwestern University — $100,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$1,681,783Health$1,284,627Education$1,041,900Recreation & Sports$100,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE CITY OF HOPE — $300,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC — $270,377 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY — $248,580 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA — $246,182 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION — $200,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY — $150,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMAYO CLINIC — $150,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetH LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC — $150,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION — $147,624 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetThe Institute For Cancer Research — $100,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYale University — $100,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNorthwestern University — $100,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER — $100,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetVanderbilt University — $100,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY — $97,138 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY — $50,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago — $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCITY OF HOPE — $50,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHEALTH RESEARCH INC — $14,250 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
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 BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE CITY OF HOPE
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC
  • Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • Who funds THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION
  • Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
  • Who funds MAYO CLINIC
  • Who funds H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC
  • Who funds OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION
  • Who funds The Institute For Cancer Research
  • Who funds Yale University
  • Who funds Northwestern University
  • Who funds FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER
  • Who funds Vanderbilt University
  • Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY
  • Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
  • Who funds University of Chicago
  • Who funds CITY OF HOPE
  • Who funds Fox Chase Cancer Center Foundation
  • Who funds HEALTH RESEARCH 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.

National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkPA17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Comprehensive Cancer Network · Mayo Clinic · American Cancer Society Inc · Vanderbilt University Medical Center · Cornell University · Northwestern University · Johns Hopkins University · Pancreatic Cancer Action Network Inc · Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · The Breast Cancer Research Foundation Inc · American Lung Association · Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

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 Nccn Foundation 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University12% of income from government
  • Yale University12% of 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
typical government reliance, FY2025

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 32 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph