Skip to content
The Fashion Footwear Charitable at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Fashion Footwear Charitable

The organizations fundraising plans include mailings to and solicitation of individuals and entities in the us fashion industry and other private benefactors who have an interestin providing funds for breast cancer research, education and awareness

$430k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$430k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$11MCommunity Improvement$175k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$430,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$359k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER$430,000
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 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 85% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SUSAN F SMITHDANA FARBER IN: $300k → 7%TWO TEN FOUNDATION: $175k → 8%UNIV OF PITTSBURGH CANCER CTR: $217k → 11%THE ABRAMSON CANCER CTR UNIV: $276k → 22%THE JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE: $326k → 14%THE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH FOUND: $279k → 17%THE WINTHROP P ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE: $295k → 17%THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $324k → 14%SITEMAN CANCER CTR AT BARNES JEWISH HOSP: $298k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $100k → 9%SUSAN F SMITHDANA FARBER IN: $291k → 7%UNIV OF PITTSBURGH CANCER CTR: $132k → 11%THE ABRAMSON CANCER CTR UNIV: $269k → 22%THE JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE: $314k → 14%THE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH FOUND: $269k → 17%THE WINTHROP P ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE: $285k → 17%THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $313k → 14%SITEMAN CANCER CTR AT BARNES JEWISH HOSP: $288k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $100k → 9%SUSAN F SMITHDANA FARBER IN: $225k → 7%THE ABRAMSON CANCER CTR UNIV: $200k → 22%THE JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE: $250k → 14%THE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH FOUND: $200k → 17%THE WINTHROP P ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE: $165k → 17%THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $250k → 14%SITEMAN CANCER CTR AT BARNES JEWISH HOSP: $225k → 11%SUSAN F SMITHDANA FARBER IN: $150k → 7%THE ABRAMSON CANCER CTR UNIV: $150k → 22%THE JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE: $250k → 14%THE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH FOUND: $200k → 17%THE WINTHROP P ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE: $100k → 17%THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $200k → 14%SITEMAN CANCER CTR AT BARNES JEWISH HOSP: $225k → 11%SUSAN F SMITHDANA FARBER IN: $100k → 7%THE ABRAMSON CANCER CTR UNIV: $100k → 22%THE JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE: $150k → 14%WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER: $430k → 17%THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $150k → 14%SITEMAN CANCER CTR AT BARNES JEWISH HOSP: $150k → 11%THE JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE: $125k → 14%WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER: $320k → 17%UNIV OF MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $125k → 14%SITEMAN CANCER CENTER: $125k → 11%CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $220k → 14%CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $212k → 14%CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $150k → 14%CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $150k → 14%CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $125k → 14%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
MI
NY
MA
PA
CA
MO
AR
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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.6M · 10 repeat orgs$250k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +76% since the first grant, against +34% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
2

Total granted

$9.6M
$250k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+76%
+34%

Still filing today

80%
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%’17’18’19’20’21’22’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24’25
HealthEducationPublic Safety & DisasterCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyOther
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

  • SJ
    SAINT JOHN'S CANCER INSTITUTE
    6× · 2017–2022 · $1.4M · revenue +48%
  • WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
    6× · 2017–2022 · $1.3M · revenue +76%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    6× · 2017–2022 · $1.1M · revenue +162%

Funded once

  • TT
    TWO TEN FOOTWEAR FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2017 · $175k · revenue -19%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AND UPMC MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $75k · revenue +34%
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
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
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

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

Education
8
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
9
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
10
The Translational Genomics Research Institute

Please see schedule o

Health
11
Upmc

Support of subsidiary tax-exempt healthcare, education and research organizations (see schedule o)

Health
12
Upmc Group

Healthcare, education, and research

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Pittsburgh; 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

11 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. 11 of the 13 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
10/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SAINT JOHN'S CANCER INSTITUTE: $1,415,000 · HealthSAINT JOHN'S CANCER INSTITUTEDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $1,146,000 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute IncNEW YORK WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER FUND INC: $985,000 · HealthNEW YORK WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER FUND INCCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $957,000 · HealthCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTERWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $1,311,000 · EducationWASHINGTON UNIVERSITYTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $1,074,500 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYL…UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION INC: $880,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION INCUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $349,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGHREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $1,362,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE U…UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $280,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WA…THE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $948,000 · Public Safety & DisasterTHE BREAS…TWO TEN FOOTWEAR FOUNDATION INC: $175,000 · Community ImprovementUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AND UPMC MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION: $75,000 · Philanthropy
Health$4,503,000Education$3,614,500Other$1,642,000Public Safety & Disaster$948,000Community Improvement$175,000Philanthropy$75,000

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 budgetSAINT JOHN'S CANCER INSTITUTE: $1,415,000 over 6y, 2.8% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $1,311,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $1,146,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $1,074,500 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetNEW YORK WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER FUND INC: $985,000 over 6y, 2.3% of budgetCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $957,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $948,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION INC: $880,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $349,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTWO TEN FOOTWEAR FOUNDATION INC: $175,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AND UPMC MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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 Fashion Footwear Charitable funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Fashion Footwear Charitable. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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 Fashion Footwear Charitable?

Find your warmest path to The Fashion Footwear Charitable 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 13 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 Fashion Footwear’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