Skip to content
The Honorable Tina Brozman Fdtn Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Honorable Tina Brozman Fdtn Inc

The honorable tina brozman foundation for ovarian cancer research (tina's wish) is an ovarian cancer non-profit organization dedicated to funding scientific research for the early detection and prevention of ovarian cancer.

$2.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
15
Grants FY2024still arriving
10
States reached
$423k
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$12M
02FY2024 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k14 grants · $1.9M
  • $250k+1 grant · $423k
$130,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$6.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY$423,000
DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE$232,407
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS$200,000
UT SOUTHWESTERN$200,000
MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING$200,000
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO$200,000
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA$166,667
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$130,000
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY$100,000
BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL$100,000
UCLA$100,000
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN$77,000
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY$75,000
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER$75,000
UNIV OF PITTSBURGH$70,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 85% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: $100k → 8%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $233k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $167k → 22%UCLA: $100k → 14%NYU School of Medicine: $100k → 17%University of Texas: $150k → 10%MD ANDERSON: $198k → 14%UT SOUTHWESTERN: $200k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: $200k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $200k → 14%University of Virginia: $100k → 8%JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $423k → 19%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $232k → 16%University of Pennsylvania: $125k → 22%UT SOUTHWESTERN: $200k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: $200k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $200k → 14%Johns Hopkins University: $325k → 19%Dana Farber Cancer Institute: $225k → 16%University of Pennsylvania: $125k → 22%Cedars Sinai: $175k → 14%University of Kansas: $150k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $150k → 14%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $300k → 19%Dana Farber Cancer Institute: $213k → 16%University of Pennsylvania: $125k → 22%University of Kansas: $150k → 15%University of Chicago: $150k → 14%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $300k → 19%Dana Farber Cancer Institute: $150k → 16%University of Kansas: $150k → 15%Johns Hopkins University: $275k → 19%Dana Farber Cancer Institute: $150k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: $150k → 15%Johns Hopkins University: $275k → 19%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $130k → 8%Dana Farber Cancer Institute: $150k → 16%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING: $200k → 17%Johns Hopkins University: $175k → 19%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $130k → 8%DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE: $150k → 16%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING: $200k → 17%Memorial Sloan Kettering: $175k → 17%Memorial Sloan Kettering: $175k → 17%Memorial Sloan Kettering: $175k → 17%Memorial Sloan Kettering: $150k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $167k → 22%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING: $150k → 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

IL
MI
NY
MA
PA
CT
CA
VA
MD
KS
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10M · 17 repeat orgs$253k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +64% since the first grant, against +14% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
2

Total granted

$10M
$86k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+64%
+14%

Still filing today

47%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $167k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthEducationOther
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

  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
    7× · 2017–2024 · $2.1M · revenue +64%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +162%
  • MS
    MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +89%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
  • MR
    MAGEE-WOMENS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $36k · revenue +14%
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
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
2
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
3
University of Miami

See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.

Education
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

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

Education
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
Washington University

The washington university is a co-educational, nondenominational university with a long and distinguished history of teaching, research and (cont'd on schedule o)

Education
11
William Marsh Rice University

As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…

Education
12
Institute for Advanced Study - Louis Bamberger & Mrs Felix Fuld Foundation

The institute for advanced study (the institute) is one of the world's leading centers for theoretical research and intellectual inquiry. see schedule o.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Chicago; 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

14 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. 14 of the 24 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)
14/14
Grantees still filing
14/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $2,073,000 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITYTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $729,167 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIAUniversity of Chicago: $700,000 · EducationUniversity of ChicagoUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $390,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGHYale University: $375,000 · EducationYale UniversityNew York University: $330,000 · EducationNew York UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $260,000 · EducationTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $200,000 · EducationDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $1,503,240 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute IncMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $1,285,000 · HealthMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CE…THE WISTAR INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY AND BIOLOGY: $375,000 · HealthTHE WISTAR INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY AN…CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $350,000 · HealthCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTERPENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM: $166,667 · Health+1 more: $36,479 · HealthKANSAS ATHLETICS INC: $1,064,000 · OtherKANSAS ATHLETICS INCMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $450,000 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORAT…Texas Southern University: $400,000 · OtherTexas Southern UniversityREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: $350,000 · OtherREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIAUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $336,568 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXASUTMD ANDERSON: $273,000 · OtherUTMD ANDERSONREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $217,521 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MI…VCUVCU HEALTH CAMPUS: $150,000 · OtherRECTOR & VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $137,500 · Other+1 more: $50,000 · Other
Education$5,057,167Health$3,716,386Other$3,428,589

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 budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $2,073,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $1,503,240 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $1,285,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $729,167 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $700,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $390,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTHE WISTAR INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY AND BIOLOGY: $375,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetYale University: $375,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $350,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNew York University: $330,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $260,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $200,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM: $166,667 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMAGEE-WOMENS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND FOUNDATION: $36,479 over 1y, 0.1% 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 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
  • Who funds MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
  • Who funds University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds THE WISTAR INSTITUTE OF ANATOMY AND BIOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds Yale University ↗
  • Who funds CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds New York University ↗
  • Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
  • Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
  • Who funds PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM ↗
  • Who funds MAGEE-WOMENS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND FOUNDATION ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Fidelity Investments …
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Honorable Tina Brozman Fdtn Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Honorable Tina Brozman Fdtn Inc. 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%
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • 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
1report 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 24 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Honorable Tina Brozman Fdtn’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