· Public charity
Pediatric Cancer Research Foundation
Fund research to power cures that reduce the percentage of children who perish from cancer until that number reaches zero.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 15 grants below total $1,546,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,695,918 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $149,918 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $234k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $754k
- $250k+1 grant · $550k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE | $550,000 |
| V FOUNDATION | $204,000 |
| MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING | $150,000 |
| CITY OF HOPE | $100,000 |
| JOHNS HOPKINS | $100,000 |
| DANA FARBER | $100,000 |
| STANFORD | $100,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO | $45,000 |
| CASE WESTERN | $37,500 |
| CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES | $37,500 |
| CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES | $32,000 |
| HOPE FOR HENRY FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| INDIANA UNIVERSITY | $27,000 |
| RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES | $25,000 |
| LIVE LIKE LIV FOUNDATION | $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 (FY25–25, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 8% of Pediatric Cancer Research Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +47% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $237k 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
- NYNEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE9× · 2017–2025 · $4.7M · revenue +10%
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc9× · 2017–2025 · $661k · revenue +132%
Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago6× · 2017–2022 · $516k · revenue +60%
Funded once
- RUREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIAone grant, 2017 · $85k
- LPLUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTHone grant, 2020 · $75k · revenue +8%
- TUTHE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTERgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $54k · revenue +79%
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.
The mission of children's hospital & research center at oakland is to protect and advance the health and well-being of children through clinical care, teaching and research.
Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service
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…
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.
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…
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…
Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.
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…
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,…
Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o
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…
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,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Health Care Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Live for Liv Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 56 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
30 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. 30 of the 37 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 NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago ↗
- Who funds MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Los Angeles ↗
- Who funds CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Texas Children's Hospital ↗
- Who funds THE V FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds HOPE FOR HENRY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE CITY OF HOPE ↗
- Who funds Baylor College of Medicine ↗
- Who funds LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds BARROW NEUROLOGICAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CHOC FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MAYO CLINIC ↗
- Who funds New York University ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF DENVER ↗
- Who funds RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ORANGE COUNTY ↗
- Who funds LIVE FOR LIV 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: Johns Hopkins University · Charities Aid Foundation America · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 Pediatric Cancer Research 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.
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- The University of Vermont Medical Center — 1% 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.