Skip to content
Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy

The PARKER INSTITUTE FOR CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY's (pici) mission is to develop and accelerate access to breakthrough cancer therapies, curating innovation from discovery to patient access.

$3.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$1.0M
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$195MEducation$256k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $3,373,255, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,623,255 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $250,000 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

  • $50k–250k8 grants · $1.3M
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.1M
$178,420
Median grant
6
States reached
$285M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONQUER CANCER FOUNDATION$1,000,000
STANFORD UNIVERSITY$820,714
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA$254,161
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH$249,999
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN$191,308
DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC$178,420
THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES$175,000
MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER$167,500
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$133,886
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER$127,267
WEILL CORNELL MEDICINE$75,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 77% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $10.2M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $6.3M → 22%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $3.7M → 8%THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES: $2.7M → 10%CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $602k → 14%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $6.7M → 17%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $10.0M → 16%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $998k → 21%CONQUER CANCER FOUNDATION: $1.0M → 9%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $1.5M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $5.8M → 22%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $3.6M → 8%THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES: $2.6M → 10%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $6.1M → 17%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $5.2M → 16%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS: $623k → 21%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $1.1M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $5.5M → 22%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $3.2M → 8%THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES: $2.6M → 10%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $5.8M → 17%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $4.7M → 16%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS: $623k → 21%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE INC: $967k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $5.3M → 22%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $2.9M → 8%WEILL CORNELL MEDICINE: $5.0M → 17%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $5.0M → 22%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $2.8M → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES: $3.2M → 14%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $4.4M → 17%FHCRC - HUTCHINSON: $1.0M → 9%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $4.7M → 22%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $2.6M → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES: $3.0M → 14%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $797k → 17%FHCRC - HUTCHINSON: $999k → 9%TMUNITY: $883k → 22%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES: $2.3M → 14%CLINTON HEALTH ACCESS INITIATIVE INC: $600k → 16%STANFORD UNIVERSITY: $821k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES: $2.2M → 14%REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $750k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES: $573k → 14%ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: $2.1M → 17%ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: $842k → 17%ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: $578k → 17%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
NY
MA
PA
CT
CA
MO
NC
DC
TX
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$140M · 18 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else

18 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
4

Total granted

$140M
$1.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+45%

Still filing today

67%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.0M 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
HealthEducationScience & TechInternationalOther
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

  • MS
    MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $25M · revenue +89%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    7× · 2018–2025 · $20M · revenue +123%
  • ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI
    8× · 2017–2024 · $4.7M · revenue +58%

Funded once

  • T
    TMUNITY
    one grant, 2018 · $883k
  • FO
    Friends of Cancer Researchgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $95k · revenue +134%
  • LJ
    LA JOLLA INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGYgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $62k · revenue +45%
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
Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute

Sanford burnham prebys medical discovery institute's mission is to advance the biomedical sciences by cultivating the next generation of scientific leaders, providing meaningful opportunities for researchers of all backgrounds to learn,…

Health
2
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
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 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
5
New York Genome Center Inc

Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.

Health
6
California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy

To harness the power of the human immune system and advanced computing technologies to create and translate scientific discoveries into next generation vaccines and therapies for prevention, control and cure of chronic diseases, enabling…

Health
7
Targeting Resistance in Cancer Cooperative
Health
8
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

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

Education
9
Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy

The parker institute for cancer immunotherapy's (pici) mission is to develop and accelerate access to breakthrough cancer therapies, curating innovation from discovery to patient access.

Health
10
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
11
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
12
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

As a leading academic healthcare organization, our mission is to elevate the health status of the communities we serve.(see schedule o for continuation)(continued)-we deliver exceptional healthcare enhanced by research and education-we…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is City of Hope; the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 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

21 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. 21 of the 27 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/21
Grantees still filing
18/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $27,772,470 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCOUTMD ANDERSON: $21,012,794 · OtherUTMD ANDERSONREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: $12,554,304 · OtherREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIAWeill Medical College of Cornell Univers: $5,547,548 · OtherWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $4,413,623 · OtherFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER+3 more: $1,944,718 · OtherTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $33,408,658 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYL…THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $22,582,858 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND S…ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI: $4,749,956 · EducationICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SIN…WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $3,469,907 · Education+4 more: $1,655,817 · EducationMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $24,713,194 · HealthMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER…Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $19,610,084 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute In…THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES: $8,104,586 · HealthTHE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTE…+6 more: $3,593,289 · Health+6 moreINSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY: $1,979,760 · Science & TechCLINTON HEALTH ACCESS INITIATIVE INC: $1,480,000 · International
Other$73,245,457Education$65,867,196Health$56,021,153Science & Tech$1,979,760International$1,480,000

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: $33,408,658 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $24,713,194 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $22,582,858 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $19,610,084 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetTHE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES: $8,104,586 over 5y, 2.3% of budgetICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI: $4,749,956 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $4,413,623 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $3,469,907 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY: $1,979,760 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetCITY OF HOPE: $1,480,806 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetCLINTON HEALTH ACCESS INITIATIVE INC: $1,480,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA FOUNDATION: $720,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $661,725 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $506,240 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE CITY OF HOPE: $287,483 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $247,241 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYale University: $240,611 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFriends of Cancer Research: $95,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetCEO ROUNDTABLE ON CANCER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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 TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
  • Who funds MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER ↗
  • Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE J DAVID GLADSTONE INSTITUTES ↗
  • Who funds ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI ↗
  • Who funds FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds CITY OF HOPE ↗
  • Who funds CLINTON HEALTH ACCESS INITIATIVE INC ↗
  • Who funds CONQUER CANCER FOUNDATION OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE CITY OF HOPE ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
  • Who funds Yale University ↗
  • Who funds Friends of Cancer Research ↗
  • Who funds LA JOLLA INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds CEO ROUNDTABLE ON CANCER INC ↗

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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

American Cancer Socie…Johns Hopkins Univers…American Heart Associ…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Cancer Society IncGA13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Cancer Society Inc · Johns Hopkins University · American Heart Association Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Yale 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
2report 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, 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 27 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 Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy’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