Skip to content
The Cancer League Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Cancer League Inc

The Cancer League is a San Francisco Bay Area nonprofit that funds groundbreaking cancer research at its early stages.

$455k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$287k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Health$1.7MRecreation & Sports$56kFood & Nutrition$55kHuman Services$20k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $28k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $140k
  • $250k+1 grant · $287k
$140,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$423k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Stanford$287,000
UCSF Foundation$140,000
Culinary Angels$28,000
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 63% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Stanford: $287k → 8%Camp Okizu: $25k → 8%John Muir Health: $40k → 9%Stanford Health Care: $100k → 10%UCSF Foundation: $342k → 10%Sutter Health: $10k → 12%Stanford Medical Center: $200k → 8%Camp Okizu: $16k → 8%Lazarex Cancer Foundation: $25k → 9%Stanford Medical Center: $90k → 10%UCSF Foundation: $215k → 10%Sutter Health Philanthropy: $7k → 12%Stanford Medical Center: $175k → 8%Okizu Foundation: $15k → 8%Lazarex Cancer Foundation: $10k → 9%Women s Cancer Resource Center: $20k → 10%UCSF Foundation: $140k → 10%Stanford Medical Center: $100k → 8%Okizu Foundation: $13k → 8%Lazarez Cancer Foundation: $8k → 9%Bay Area Tumor Institute: $13k → 10%UCSF Foundation: $100k → 10%Culinary Angels: $28k → 10%Culinary Angels: $25k → 10%Culinary Angels: $20k → 10%George Mark s Children s House: $10k → 10%Culinary Angels: $10k → 10%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.2M · 6 repeat orgs$83k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
4

Total granted

$2.2M
$83k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
+24%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationFood & NutritionOther
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

  • SH
    STANFORD HEALTH CARE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $952k · revenue +61%
  • CA
    Culinary Angels
    4× · 2022–2025 · $83k · revenue +51%
  • SH
    SUTTER HEALTH
    2× · 2021–2023 · $17k · revenue +11%

Funded once

  • JM
    JOHN MUIR HEALTH FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $40k · revenue +24%
  • WC
    Womens Cancer Resource Center
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue -26%
  • BA
    BAY AREA TUMOR INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2020 · $13k · revenue -100%
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
California Pacific Medical Center Foundation

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
2
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
3
Ucsf Foundation Investment Company

The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.

Education
4
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation

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
5
Sutter Valley Medical Foundation

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
6
Ucsf Health Medical Foundation

See schedule othe mission of ucsf health medical foundation is threefold: 1) to establish, operate and maintain medical clinics for the provision of healthcare services in california; 2) to promote health by providing, coordinating,…

Health
7
Cancer Prevention Institute of California (Cpic)

As the nation's premier organization, CPIC was dedicated to preventing cancer and reducing its burden where it cannot yet be prevented. CPIC's innovative cancer prevention research and outreach programs were delivering a comprehensive…

—
8
Sutter Coast Hospital

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
9
Sutter Medical Center Foundation

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
10
California Institute for BioMedical Research

Our mission is to build a unique institute that bridges basic research and drug discovery, and that attracts the best and brightest scientists, physicians and students to work together synergistically to find cures for neglected human…

—
11
Sutter Roseville Medical Center Foundation

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
12
Sansum Clinic

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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sutter Health; the most unlike its peers is Culinary Angels. 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

10 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.

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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $1,075,374 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATIONLazarex Cancer Foundation: $43,000 · EducationSTANFORD HEALTH CARE: $952,000 · HealthSTANFORD HEALTH CAREJOHN MUIR HEALTH FOUNDATION: $40,000 · Health+2 more: $27,000 · HealthOKIZU FOUNDATION: $68,500 · OtherWomens Cancer Resource Center: $20,000 · OtherBAY AREA TUMOR INSTITUTE: $13,000 · OtherCulinary Angels: $83,300 · Food & Nutrition
Education$1,118,374Health$1,019,000Other$101,500Food & Nutrition$83,300

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $1,075,374 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSTANFORD HEALTH CARE: $952,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCulinary Angels: $83,300 over 4y, 9.2% of budgetOKIZU FOUNDATION: $68,500 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetLazarex Cancer Foundation: $43,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetJOHN MUIR HEALTH FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWomens Cancer Resource Center: $20,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetSUTTER HEALTH: $17,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBAY AREA TUMOR INSTITUTE: $13,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetGeorge Mark Childrens Fund: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

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.

East Bay Community Fo…American Online Givin…Morgan Stanley Global…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
East Bay Community FoundationCA13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: East Bay Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · 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 The Cancer League Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Cancer League Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Cancer League Inc?

    Find your warmest path to The Cancer League Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 10 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 Cancer League’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