Skip to content
The Scan Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Scan Foundation

THE SCAN FOUNDATION envisions a society where all of us can age well with purpose.

$7.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
54
Grants FY2024still arriving
11
States reached
$649k
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 2024.

Health$18MHuman Services$6.1MPublic Benefit$5.8MCommunity Improvement$3.4MSocial Science$2.2MEducation$1.1MArts & Culture$846kEmployment$841kOther$0
02FY2024 · 54 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 54 grants below total $6,961,735, the rows itemized in this filing. The $7,142,925 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $181,190 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k16 grants · $482k
  • $50k–250k27 grants · $3.2M
  • $250k+9 grants · $3.3M
$81,528
Median grant
11
States reached
$263M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%AMERICAN SOCIETY ON AGING: $35k → 10%FREEDADRC OF NEVADA COUNTY: $25k → 11%COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTER: $53k → 11%SENIORS COUNCIL OF SANTA CRUZ & SAN BENITO COUNTIES: $10k → 13%INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF KERN COUNTY: $29k → 18%DISABILITY ACTION CENTER: $55k → 18%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $28k → 9%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $25k → 7%NATIONAL INVESTMENT CENTER FOR SENIOR HOUSING & CARE INC: $15k → 6%SILICON VALLEY INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER: $15k → 8%FREEDADRC OF NEVADA COUNTY: $15k → 11%COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTER: $15k → 11%YOLO HEALTHY AGING ALLIANCE: $15k → 16%INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF KERN COUNTY: $15k → 18%DISABILITY ACTION CENTER: $15k → 18%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $14k → 9%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING INC: $20k → 7%SILICON VALLEY INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER: $10k → 8%FREEDADRC OF NEVADA COUNTY: $15k → 11%COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTER: $10k → 11%INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF KERN COUNTY: $15k → 18%DISABILITY ACTION CENTER: $10k → 18%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING INC: $10k → 9%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $18k → 7%SILICON VALLEY INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER: $8k → 8%FREEDADRC OF NEVADA COUNTY: $10k → 11%INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OF KERN COUNTY: $9k → 18%DISABILITY ACTION CENTER: $10k → 18%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $8k → 9%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $8k → 7%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $8k → 9%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING INC: $8k → 7%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING INC: $8k → 7%ADVANCING STATES INC: $75k → 7%ADVANCING STATES INC: $75k → 7%ADVANCING STATES INC: $75k → 7%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $25k → 7%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $20k → 7%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING INC: $8k → 7%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

ME
VT
WA
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
PA
NJ
CT
CA
CO
VA
MD
NC
DC
TX
FL
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 5% of The Scan Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 32% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 35%.

The Scan Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 3.0% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$34M · 83 repeat orgs$5.5M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +67% since the first grant, against +10% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

83
61

Total granted

$34M
$3.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+67%
+10%

Still filing today

55%
64%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.9M went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesEducationSocial SciencePhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE STRATEGIES INC
    7× · 2018–2024 · $3.1M · revenue +101%
  • PP
    PUBLIC POLICY LAB INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +59% · 28% of their budget
  • NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE
    5× · 2018–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +55%

Funded once

  • PD
    PHOENIX DECORATING COMPANY INC
    one grant, 2019 · $275k
  • FH
    FINANCIAL HEALTH NETWORK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $232k · revenue +35%
  • THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $205k · revenue +91%
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 California Medical Innovations Institute Inc

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…

Education
2
Altamed Health Services Corporation

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.

Health
3
Alliance for Aging Research

The alliance for aging research is the leading nonprofit organization dedicated to changing the narrative to achieve healthy aging and equitable access to care.

—
4
Arbor Research Collaborative for Health

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…

Health
5
National Coalition On Health Care

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…

Health
6
Commonwealth Care Alliance Inc

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.

Health
7
Emanate Health

Our mission is to help people keep well in body, mind, and spirit by providing quality health care services in a safe, compassionate environment.

Health
8
America's Health Insurance Plans Inc

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…

Membership Benefit
9
Kaiser Foundation for the Advancement of Integrated Health Care

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…

Health
10
The American Institute of Architects California

The AIA California, in collaboration with local components, is the voice of the architectural profession.

—
11
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States Inc

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…

Health
12
Union Health System

To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Catalyst Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

101 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. 101 of the 164 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
23
Early backer (in before they grew)
101/101
Grantees still filing
67/101
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ATI ADVISORY: $3,046,671 · OtherATI ADVISORYBIRSEL SECK: $1,262,278 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: $1,211,193 · OtherCALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR LONG TERM SERVICES AND SUPPORTS: $1,198,182 · OtherJENNINGS POLICY STRATEGIES INC: $900,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY: $888,831 · Other+98 more: $15,188,038 · Other+98 moreCENTER FOR HEALTH CARE STRATEGIES INC: $3,061,504 · HealthCENTER FOR HEALTH CAR…NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE: $1,581,562 · HealthNATIONAL COMMITTEE FO…Alliance for Health Policy: $591,767 · HealthAlliance for Health P…Camden Coalition Inc: $410,000 · HealthCamden Coalition IncDigital Medicine Society Inc: $300,000 · Health+20 more: $1,715,099 · Health+20 morePUBLIC POLICY LAB INC: $1,778,567 · Public BenefitBIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC: $990,783 · Public Benefit+1 more: $50,000 · Public BenefitAARP FOUNDATION: $1,008,941 · Human ServicesADvancing States Inc: $225,000 · Human ServicesGRANTMAKERS IN AGING INC: $205,500 · Human ServicesDisability Action Center: $90,000 · Human ServicesCommunity Access Center: $77,806 · Human ServicesIndependent Living Center of Kern County: $68,000 · Human ServicesFREED Center for Independent Living Inc: $65,000 · Human Services+6 more: $127,500 · Human ServicesNATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER: $1,319,295 · Social ScienceTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $205,000 · Social ScienceTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: $150,000 · Social Science+1 more: $20,000 · Social ScienceUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $550,000 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $365,000 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITY: $179,996 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $120,000 · EducationTRADEOFFS INC: $91,444 · EducationCONVERGENCE CENTER FOR POLICY RESOLUTION: $75,000 · Education+5 more: $82,000 · EducationHENRY J KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION: $1,000,000 · PhilanthropySOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRANTMAKERS: $54,600 · PhilanthropyGRANTMAKERS IN HEALTH: $50,300 · Philanthropy+1 more: $11,500 · Philanthropy
Other$23,695,193Health$7,659,932Public Benefit$2,819,350Human Services$1,867,747Social Science$1,694,295Education$1,463,440Philanthropy$1,116,400

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 budgetCENTER FOR HEALTH CARE STRATEGIES INC: $3,061,504 over 7y, 8.6% of budgetPUBLIC POLICY LAB INC: $1,778,567 over 2y, 28% of budgetNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE: $1,581,562 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetNATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER: $1,319,295 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetAARP FOUNDATION: $1,008,941 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetHENRY J KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION: $1,000,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetBIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC: $990,783 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetJUSTICE IN AGING: $639,000 over 4y, 4.6% of budgetGENERATION YOU EMPLOYED INC: $598,616 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetAlliance for Health Policy: $591,767 over 2y, 21% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $550,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR HEALTHCARE IMPROVEMENT: $547,419 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetHOMEBRIDGE INC: $478,395 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetUSAGING: $450,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetCamden Coalition Inc: $410,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $365,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGERONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA: $300,000 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetDigital Medicine Society Inc: $300,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetFINANCIAL HEALTH NETWORK INC: $232,056 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetPROJECT HOPE - THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $225,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetADvancing States Inc: $225,000 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR ACCOUNTABLE CARE: $218,251 over 2y, 27% of budgetBOOKER T WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER: $212,500 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetGRANTMAKERS IN AGING INC: $205,500 over 7y, 4.3% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $205,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetROCK HEALTH FOUNDATION: $199,900 over 1y, 16% of budgetNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $195,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $179,996 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH PLANS: $177,814 over 4y, 1.9% of budgetLONG-TERM QUALITY ALLIANCE: $165,980 over 3y, 25% of budgetINNOVATION DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INC: $165,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetImperial Valley Wellness Foundation: $150,000 over 1y, 42% of budgetTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: $150,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCOALITION FOR HEALTH AI INC: $150,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetHEALTHCARE FOUNDATION NORTHERN SONOMA COUNTY: $149,925 over 1y, 8.4% of budgetTHE MILKEN INSTITUTE: $140,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetVILCAP INC: $125,461 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCOMMUNITY CATALYST INC: $120,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $120,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPURCHASER BUSINESS GROUP ON HEALTH: $116,925 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetTRADEOFFS INC: $91,444 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetDisability Action Center: $90,000 over 4y, 4.5% of budgetInsure the Uninsured Project: $85,000 over 1y, 7.7% of budgetLOCAL HEALTH PLANS OF CALIFORNIA: $81,528 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetCommunity Access Center: $77,806 over 3y, 16% of budgetCONVERGENCE CENTER FOR POLICY RESOLUTION: $75,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCIVIC VENTURES DBA COGENERATE: $75,000 over 1y, 4.2% 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 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 GERONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds Digital Medicine Society Inc ↗

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.

California Healthcare…The John a Hartford F…The Commonwealth FundLaura and John Arnold…Archstone FoundationThe Robert Wood Johns…Scan Health PlanKaiser Foundation Hos…Gates FoundationThe California Wellne…The David and Lucile …Peter G Peterson Foun…
California Healthcare FoundationCA84.9× affinity47 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 14%
  • 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
19report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely 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 164 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 Scan’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