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

· Public charity

The Livestrong Foundation

Since 1997, The Livestrong Foundation has served and supported over 14.2 million people affected by cancer through survivorship programs, publications and collaborative partnerships with community and grassroots organziations to ensure a high quality of life.

$54k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$38k
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 2024.

Education$20MHealth$5.8MHuman Services$773kRecreation & Sports$38kCommunity Improvement$12kFood & Nutrition$12kPhilanthropy$11k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$37,602
Median grant
2
States reached
$26M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Texas One Fund$37,602
Regents of University of Michigan$16,667
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–22, $793k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 98% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%YMCA OF THE USA: $451k → 14%BIG LOVE CANCER CARE SERVICES: $20k → 6%YMCA OF THE USA: $223k → 14%WONDERS & WORRIES INC: $50k → 10%WONDERS & WORRIES INC: $25k → 10%WONDERS & WORRIES INC: $25k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

MT
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OH
CA
CO
MO
VA
DC
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$26M · 9 repeat orgs$208k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +37% since the first grant, against +2% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
12

Total granted

$26M
$170k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%
+2%

Still filing today

78%
92%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k 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
HealthHuman ServicesPhilanthropyEducationCommunity ImprovementFood & 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

  • National Council of YMCAs of the USA
    2× · 2017–2018 · $673k · revenue +51%
  • WW
    Wonders & Worries Inc
    3× · 2020–2022 · $100k · revenue +43%
  • V
    VITALHEARTS
    3× · 2020–2022 · $98k · revenue +60%

Funded once

  • TB
    THE BREAKFAST CLUB INC
    one grant, 2021 · $23k · revenue -18%
  • SF
    SMITH FARM LTD
    one grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue -5%
  • HI
    HOPECAM INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $20k · revenue +60%
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
We Beat Cancer
Philanthropy
2
Children's Cancer Fund of Dallas inc

Children's cancer fund champions kids in their fight against cancer through strategic investments in research and care in north texas.

Health
3
Imagine a Cure Cancer Treatment
Health
4
Children's Hospital & Research Center At Oakland

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.

Health
5
Dana-Farber Children's Hospital Cancer Care Inc

To oversee, coordinate and support the Pediatric Oncology Programs at Boston Children's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc.

Health
6
Wipe Out Kids' Cancer Inc

Wipe out kids cancer offers comfort and hope to kids with cancer through support programs serving the entire family and funds innovative research leading to new discoveries and treatments in the fight against pediatric cancer. "support and…

—
7
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
8
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Inc

Susan g. komen has an unmatched, comprehensive 360-degree approach to fighting breast cancer across all fronts and supporting millions of people in the u.s. and in countries worldwide. we advocate for policies to protect patients, drive…

Health
9
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Fdn Group

Susan g. komen 's mission is to save lives by meeting the most critical needs in our communities & investing in breakthrough research to prevent & cure breast cancer.

—
10
Cancer Support Network

CanSup is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization dedicated to improving outcomes for cancer patients through unwavering, unbiased 1:1 support, leveraging our cutting edge technology platform. We are based in Texas but serve the entire United…

Health
11
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc

The mission of dfci is to provide expert, compassionate, and equitable care to children, adults, and their families, while advancing the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer and related diseases. we train new…

Health
12
Children's Cancer Research Fund

Children's cancer research fund fuels transformational research to bring better treatments and cures to children with cancer.

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Support Community Los Angeles; the most unlike its peers is Texas One Fund 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

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 22 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
11/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $19,790,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS+4 more: $110,687 · OtherMOVEMBER FOUNDATION: $5,403,733 · HealthMOVEMBER FOUNDATION+8 more: $118,250 · HealthNational Council of YMCAs of the USA: $673,098 · Human ServicesWonders & Worries Inc: $100,000 · Human Services+1 more: $19,500 · Human ServicesPABLOVE FOUNDATION INC: $150,000 · PhilanthropyI LIVE HERE I GIVE HERE: $10,600 · PhilanthropyVITALHEARTS: $98,400 · EducationTexas One Fund Inc: $37,602 · Community ImprovementPLANT POWERED METRO NEW YORK INC: $11,820 · Food & Nutrition
Other$19,900,687Health$5,521,983Human Services$792,598Philanthropy$160,600Education$98,400Community Improvement$37,602Food & Nutrition$11,820

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 budgetMOVEMBER FOUNDATION: $5,403,733 over 2y, 15% of budgetNational Council of YMCAs of the USA: $673,098 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetPABLOVE FOUNDATION INC: $150,000 over 4y, 8.1% of budgetWonders & Worries Inc: $100,000 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetVITALHEARTS: $98,400 over 3y, 14% of budgetTexas One Fund Inc: $37,602 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE BREAKFAST CLUB INC: $22,800 over 1y, 19% of budgetSMITH FARM LTD: $20,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetHOPECAM INC: $20,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetBIG LOVE CANCER CARE SERVICES: $19,500 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetGeorge Mark Childrens Fund: $18,750 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetKIDS KICKING CANCER INC: $15,200 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTHE CURE STARTS NOW INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY LOS ANGELES: $12,020 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetPLANT POWERED METRO NEW YORK INC: $11,820 over 1y, 8.7% of budgetI LIVE HERE I GIVE HERE: $10,600 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetEmilio Nares Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetHENNEPIN HEALTH FOUNDATION: $9,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCASTING FOR RECOVERY: $7,500 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

Central Texas Communi…Austin Community Foun…Shell USA Company Fou…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…Raymond James Charita…The Pfizer Foundation…Charities Aid Foundat…American Endowment Fo…American Online Givin…Natl Christian Charit…Donor Advised Charita…
Central Texas Community FoundationTX13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Central Texas Community Foundation · Austin Community Foundation Inc · Shell USA Company Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Endowment Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Livestrong Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Livestrong Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Livestrong Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Livestrong Foundation 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 22 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 Livestrong’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