· Public charity
The Scan Foundation
THE SCAN FOUNDATION envisions a society where all of us can age well with purpose.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 54 grants below total $6,961,735 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $7,142,925 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $181,190 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $18k
- $10k–50k16 grants · $482k
- $50k–250k27 grants · $3.2M
- $250k+9 grants · $3.3M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON | $649,189 |
| PUBLIC POLICY LAB | $599,560 |
| GENERATION | $348,431 |
| STANFORD UNIVERSITY | $330,000 |
| UC BERKELEY | $300,000 |
| DIGITAL MEDICINE SOCIETY INC | $300,000 |
| PUBLIC POLICY LAB | $272,943 |
| ANNE TUMLINSON INNOVATIONS LLC | $257,386 |
| GENERATION | $250,185 |
| CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR LTSS | $233,100 |
| BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER | $225,000 |
| PROJECT HOPE HEALTH AFFAIRS | $200,000 |
| CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE STRATEGIES INC | $200,000 |
| UC DAVIS | $199,881 |
| JUSTICE IN AGING | $164,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $839k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 43% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 5% of The Scan Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 32% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 35% — more of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +67% since the first grant, against +29% for the ones you funded once.
83 repeat relationships — 21 still active in FY2024, 62 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.9M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE STRATEGIES INC7× · 2018–2024 · $3.1M · revenue +101%- PPPUBLIC POLICY LAB INC2× · 2023–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +59% · 28% of their budget
NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE5× · 2018–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +44%
Funded once
- PDPHOENIX DECORATING COMPANY INCone grant, 2019 · $275k
- FHFINANCIAL HEALTH NETWORK INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $232k · revenue +35%
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $205k · revenue +91%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The Institute is a scientific research center dedicated to conducting basic and applied research to advance the understanding of human disease and the improvement of human health. The Institute fosters an innovative research environment…
To eliminate disparities in health care access and outcomes by providing superior quality health and human services through an integrated world-class delivery system for latino, multi-ethnic underserved communities in southern california.
The alliance for aging research is the leading nonprofit organization dedicated to changing the narrative to achieve healthy aging and equitable access to care.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
The mission of the national coalition on health care (nchc) is to support research and analysis, develop and promote policy solutions, build consensus, and engage the public in order to ensure that america has a high quality health system…
Commonwealth care alliance, inc.'s mission is to improve the health and well-being of people with significant needs by innovating, coordinating and providing the highest quality, individualized care.
Our mission is to help people keep well in body, mind, and spirit by providing quality health care services in a safe, compassionate environment.
Ahip is the national trade association representing the health insurance industry. ahip's members provide health care coverage, services and solutions to more than 200 million americans. we are committed to market-based solutions and…
Kaiser foundation for the advancement of integrated health care is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) advocacy organization to engage in proactive advocacy to promote understanding of the benefits of integrated care and coverage, and support of the…
The AIA California, in collaboration with local components, is the voice of the architectural profession.
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Catalyst Inc and the most unlike its peers is Imperial Valley Wellness Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 31 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.6% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
101 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 101 of the 164 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE STRATEGIES INC ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC POLICY LAB INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds AARP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HENRY J KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE IN AGING ↗
- Who funds GENERATION YOU EMPLOYED INC ↗
- Who funds Alliance for Health Policy ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR HEALTHCARE IMPROVEMENT ↗
- Who funds HOMEBRIDGE INC ↗
- Who funds USAGING ↗
- Who funds Camden Coalition Inc ↗
- Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Digital Medicine Society Inc ↗
- Who funds GERONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: California Healthcare Foundation · The John a Hartford Foundation Inc · The Commonwealth Fund · Laura and John Arnold Foundation · Archstone Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · Scan Health Plan · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Gates Foundation · The California Wellness Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Peter G Peterson Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Scan Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Jsi Research & Training Institute Inc — 69% of income from government
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Community Catalyst Inc — 15% of income from government
- Digital Medicine Society Inc — 14% of income from government
- Center for Health Care Strategies Inc — 7% of income from government
- National Investment Center for Seniors Housing & Care Inc — 0% of income from government
- Institute for Healthcare Improvement — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.