Skip to content
Wipe Out Kids' Cancer Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

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.

$1.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$378k
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Health$2.7MEducation$123kScience & Tech$35kPhilanthropy$10k
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $1,053,485, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,201,971 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $148,486 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

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $35k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $640k
  • $250k+1 grant · $378k
$105,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN$378,246
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL IN LOS ANGELES$150,000
DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE$115,159
BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CTR$105,000
FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER$100,000
BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE$99,223
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$70,857
THE CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER$35,000
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 (FY22–22, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%HACKENSACK MERIDIAN FOUNDATION: $10k → 8%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.
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.4M · 8 repeat orgs$466k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against -47% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$2.4M
$145k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
-47%

Still filing today

63%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $321k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’21’22’23’24
HealthEducationHuman ServicesOther
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

  • BC
    Baylor College of Medicine
    3× · 2022–2024 · $245k · revenue +19%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $230k · revenue +16%
  • BI
    BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $158k · revenue +28%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO
    one grant, 2022 · $123k
  • CC
    COOK CHILDREN'S HEALTH FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $13k
  • CN
    Charity Navigator
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue -47%
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
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
3
Baylor Research Institute

To improve the care and well being of our community, nationally and internationally, through innovative clinically relevant research that is consistent with the mission, vision and values of Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH).

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
The Nebraska Medical Center

The Nebraska Medical Center (TNMC)'s mission is to lead the world in transforming lives to create a healthy future for individuals and communities through premier educational programs, innovative research, and extraordinary patient care.

Health
6
Children's Hospital Corporation

Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service

Health
7
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

As a leading academic healthcare organization, our mission is to elevate the health status of the communities we serve.(see schedule o for continuation)(continued)-we deliver exceptional healthcare enhanced by research and education-we…

Health
8
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
9
Mass General Brigham Incorporated & Affiliates Group Return

Mass general brigham incorporated is developing an integrated health care delivery system throughout the region that offers patients a continuum of coordinated, high-quality care.

Health
10
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
11
Rush University Medical Center

The mission of Rush is to improve the health of the individuals and diverse communities we serve through the integration of outstanding patient care, education, research and community partnerships.

Health
12
Rhode Island Hospital

As a founding hospital in the brown university health system, rih is committed to its mission: delivering health with care.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; the most unlike its peers is Charity Navigator. 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

9 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. 9 of the 14 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)
8/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UT SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH SYSTEMS: $655,455 · HealthUT SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH SYSTEMSDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $230,318 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute IncBETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INC: $157,500 · HealthBETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INCChildren's Hospital Los Angeles: $150,000 · HealthChildren's Hospital Los AngelesFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $100,000 · HealthFred Hutchinson Cancer CenterCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $80,000 · HealthCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIONUNIVERSITY TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN: $540,407 · OtherUNIVERSITY TEXAS SOUTHWESTERNFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $275,000 · OtherFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTERCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIO: $175,000 · OtherCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIOUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: $122,553 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGOREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: $70,857 · OtherREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIA+1 more: $12,500 · OtherBaylor College of Medicine: $245,446 · EducationBaylor Co…Charity Navigator: $10,000 · Human Services
Health$1,373,273Other$1,196,317Education$245,446Human Services$10,000

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 budgetUT SOUTHWESTERN HEALTH SYSTEMS: $655,455 over 2y, 17% of budgetFRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER: $275,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBaylor College of Medicine: $245,446 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $230,318 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INC: $157,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetChildren's Hospital Los Angeles: $150,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFred Hutchinson Cancer Center: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $80,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCharity Navigator: $10,000 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Wipe Out Kids' Cancer Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wipe Out Kids' Cancer Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Inc: 6% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
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 14 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 Wipe Out Kids' Cancer’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