Skip to content
The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation

The organization's mission is to find a cure and improve the quality of life for cholangiocarcinoma patients.

$1.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$245k
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$4.4M
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $820,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,015,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $195,000 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.
$65,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$5.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MAYO CLINIC$245,000
UCSF$185,000
VANDERBILT$130,000
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE$65,000
MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER$65,000
MASS GENERAL HOSPITAL$65,000
BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTE$65,000
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 55% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%THE BROAD INSTITUTE: $402k → 8%BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $50k → 16%MAYO CLINIC: $245k → 9%UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $50k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURG: $50k → 11%UCSF: $185k → 10%CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $50k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: $50k → 9%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CEN: $144k → 17%MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $65k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $50k → 14%PROVIDENCE PORTLAND MEDICAL CENTER: $50k → 12%VANDERBILT: $130k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 11%EMORY UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CEN: $50k → 9%NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%CONQUER CANCER: $8k → 9%NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE: $65k → 8%THE BROAD INSTITUTE: $50k → 8%BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTE: $65k → 16%UCSF: $185k → 10%ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: $50k → 17%FRED HUTCHINSON: $50k → 9%NIHNCI: $65k → 8%DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $50k → 16%ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: $50k → 17%NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE: $50k → 8%NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE: $50k → 8%NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE: $50k → 8%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
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
PA
CA
VA
MD
TN
NC
HI
GA
TX

Grants abroad, by region: $195k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$130k · 67% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: CANCER RESEARCH

North America (Canada and Mexico)$65k · 33% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: CANCER RESEARCH

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

68%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 8 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against +25% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
15

Total granted

$2.3M
$802k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
+25%

Still filing today

38%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $260k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • TB
    The Broad Institute Inc
    2× · 2019–2023 · $452k · revenue +58%
  • ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI
    2× · 2021–2022 · $100k · revenue +22%
  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2021–2022 · $100k · revenue +40%

Funded once

  • MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $144k · revenue +64%
  • PH
    PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND SERVICES
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
  • Northwestern Universitygraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +26%
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
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
2
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
3
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
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
University of Minnesota Physicians

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…

Health
6
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
7
Rhode Island Hospital

As a founding hospital in the brown university health system, rih is committed to its mission: delivering health with care.

Health
8
Mass General Brigham Incorporated & Affiliates Group Return

Mass general brigham incorporated is developing an integrated health care delivery system throughout the region that offers patients a continuum of coordinated, high-quality care.

Health
9
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
10
The Nebraska Medical Center

The Nebraska Medical Center (TNMC)'s mission is to lead the world in transforming lives to create a healthy future for individuals and communities through premier educational programs, innovative research, and extraordinary patient care.

Health
11
Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary

THE MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY ("THE INFIRMARY") IS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT TEACHING HOSPITAL CONDUCTING PATIENT CARE AND RESEARCH. THE INFIRMARY IS A TEACHING HOSPITAL OF HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL AND AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH.…

Health
12
Truman Medical Center Incorporated

University health is an academic health center providing accessible, state-of-the-art quality healthcare to our community regardless of the ability to pay.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Johns Hopkins University; 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

18 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. 18 of the 28 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
15/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $672,545 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATEDUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $370,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCOThe National Cancer Institute: $280,000 · OtherThe National Cancer InstituteUTMD ANDERSON: $230,245 · OtherUTMD ANDERSONREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $100,000 · Other+6 more: $315,000 · Other+6 moreMAYO CLINIC: $956,162 · HealthMAYO CLINICThe Broad Institute Inc: $452,000 · HealthThe Broad Institute IncMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $144,000 · HealthMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTERVanderbilt University Medical Center: $130,000 · HealthVanderbilt University Medical Center+6 more: $273,209 · Health+6 moreICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI: $100,000 · EducationICAHN SCHO…JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $100,000 · EducationJOHNS HOPK…Emory University: $50,000 · EducationEmory Univ…DUKE UNIVERSITY: $50,000 · EducationDUKE UNIVE…UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $50,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY…THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $50,000 · EducationTHE BOARD …Northwestern University: $50,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$1,967,790Health$1,955,371Education$400,000Recreation & Sports$50,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMAYO CLINIC: $956,162 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetThe Broad Institute Inc: $452,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $144,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVanderbilt University Medical Center: $130,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI: $100,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $100,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INC: $65,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNorthwestern University: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEmory University: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetChildren's Hospital Corporation: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCONQUER CANCER FOUNDATION OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY: $8,209 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation. 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 10%
  • The Broad Institute Inc: 19% of income from government
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • Children's Hospital Corporation: 10% of income from government
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Inc: 6% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
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 28 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 Cholangiocarcinoma’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