Skip to content
Ask
← FundingAlso makes grants — grantmaker profile →

California · Nonprofit

GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION

GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION (California) receives grants from 49 organizations whose IRS filings report $7,761,578 to it, the largest being CHARLES AND HELEN SCHWAB FOUNDATION ($2,000,000). 32 of them have funded it in more than one year.

Revenue FY2024
$943k
Funders on record
49
Grants received
$7.8M
Net assets
$2.2M
32/49 repeat funderspeak grant-dependency 88%
01What it does

What Grace Science Foundation does

Mission

The mission of the foundation is to support and fund the development of life-saving treatment for patients that are deficient in the n-glycanese enzyme and those suffering from related genetic diseases. The activities of the foundation will involve providing grant funding to hospitals and medical resesarch facilities which are conducting medical research in various fields relating to the search for understnading and treatment of this condition, fostering collaboration between academia, research institutions, hospitals, private companies, and governmental agencies.

As stated on its FY2024 Form 990.

Programs

  1. Baylor College of Medicine NGLY1 Natural History Study (Bernhard Suter) Team is conducting a natural history study to define the clinical spectrum of the disease and its progression, and define biomarker endpoints for use in therapeutic trials. This study is led by Dr. Bernhard Suter, MD, a child neurologist and medical geneticist. The study is collecting longitudinal measures of movement concurrently with clinical and biomarker measures to define aspects of gait and movement that are most affected in the disorder, characterize progression of the disease, select clinical features for performing longitudinal assessments, and inform clinical endpoint development for therapeutic trials.

    $452,697 spentof which $452,697 as grants
    33% of program spending

  2. Psychogenics Inc. Team has imported and is analyzing mouse and rat models of NGLY1 Deficiency for testing of candidate therapies. Team has conducted several studies using an NGLY1 knockout rat model to test phenotypic rescue using candidate small molecule therapies (both novel and approved drugs).

    $352,945 spentof which $352,945 as grants
    25% of program spending

  3. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER (YAN LAB) Team continues work generating and characterizing several mouse models of NGLY1 Deficiency, including models in which the gene is inactivated in certain tissues and conditionally after birth. These mouse models have allowed them to characterize neurological phenotypes including neuronal loss, neuropathological changes, inflammation, sensory and motor defects, and disease associated biomarkers, all of which are also observed in NGLY1 Deficiency patients These animal models provide a foundation for testing candidate therapies, including gene therapies and small molecule drugs. The team has also found that NGLY1 Deficiency in mice triggers a specific innate immune pathway mediated by the cGAS/STING pathway. Using genetic and pharmacological approaches, the team has uncovered three different targets that can be modulated to reduce disease associated phenotypes and improve survival.

    $203,574 spentof which $203,574 as grants
    15% of program spending

  4. The University of North Carolina (Hantman Lab)

    $80,637 spentof which $80,637 as grants
    6% of program spending

  5. Charles River Laboratories

    $68,025 spentof which $68,025 as grants
    5% of program spending

  6. Boston Children's Hospital (Yu Lab)

    $49,108 spentof which $49,108 as grants
    4% of program spending

  7. Hilltop Lab Animals Inc.

    $27,695 spentof which $27,695 as grants
    2% of program spending

  8. Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Kaushik Lab)

    $24,241 spentof which $24,241 as grants
    2% of program spending

  9. Purdue University (Rochet Lab)

    $23,869 spentof which $23,869 as grants
    2% of program spending

  10. Pharmaron, Inc

    $20,356 spentof which $20,356 as grants
    1% of program spending

  11. Universitry of Utah (Chow Lab)

    $19,321 spentof which $19,321 as grants
    1% of program spending

  12. Standford University

    $10,115 spentof which $10,115 as grants
    1% of program spending

  13. University of Houston

    $9,747 spentof which $9,747 as grants
    1% of program spending

  14. Bioagilytix Labs

    $19,000 spent
    1% of program spending

  15. Transnetyx

    $13,904 spent
    1% of program spending

  16. Wuxi Apptec

    $10,481 spent
    1% of program spending

  17. MedChem Express LLC

    $5,369 spent
    0% of program spending

The 17 programs described on its FY2024 Form 990, listed largest first by expense. Program spending in total: $1,391,084.

02The organization over time

The organization over time

Each line starts at 100 in 2017, so what you read is the shape rather than the size: 150 means half as much again as 2017, 50 means half. The number beside each label in the key is where it ended. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.

100 = 20172017 Revenue 100 ($1.7M) Expenses 100 ($921k) Net assets 100 ($2.1M)2018 Revenue 72 ($1.2M) Expenses 117 ($1.1M) Net assets 105 ($2.2M)2019 Revenue 93 ($1.6M) Expenses 91 ($839k) Net assets 138 ($2.9M)2020 Revenue 87 ($1.5M) Expenses 158 ($1.5M) Net assets 138 ($2.9M)2021 Revenue 79 ($1.3M) Expenses 121 ($1.1M) Net assets 148 ($3.1M)2022 Revenue 74 ($1.2M) Expenses 132 ($1.2M) Net assets 150 ($3.1M)2023 Revenue 49 ($827k) Expenses 140 ($1.3M) Net assets 131 ($2.7M)2024 Revenue 56 ($943k) Expenses 165 ($1.5M) Net assets 106 ($2.2M)
'17'18'19'20'21'22'23'24
Revenue (56)Expenses (165)Net assets (106)Peer revenue range

Balance sheet

Total assets and total liabilities at each year end, in dollars. The largest one-year move in total assets was 2018 to 2019, from $2.2M to $2.9M (+32%).

$2.1M
$2.2M
$2.9M
$2.9M
$3.1M
$3.2M
$2.8M
$2.2M
'17'18'19'20'21'22'23'24
Total assetsTotal liabilities

How it's funded, over time

Each bar is one year's revenue split into where it came from, and every bar is the same height — these are shares, not amounts, so a year that raised twice as much looks the same size. Hover a bar for the split.

2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
ContributionsProgram revenueInvestmentOther

92% of GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (82% for the typical peer).

This organization
Typical peer · 14,893 orgs

Surplus & reserves

Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.

$757k
’17
$126k
’18
$722k
’19
$1k
’20
$214k
’21
$18k
’22
−$463k
’23
−$576k
’24
18
months of
reserve

Leadership and staff

The officers, directors, trustees and key employees listed on each return. Joined and no longer listed compare each filing with the year before, matching people by surname and first initial; a year after a gap, or a roster under three people, has no comparison.

'17'18'19'20'21'22'23'24
Listed77777777
Joined·+0+0+0+0+0+0+0
No longer listed·0000000
03Who funds it

Who funds it, year by year

2017 → 2023: the base broadened from 16 funders to 17 funders, grant income fell $1.2M → $723k.

Funder
'17
'18
'19
'20
'21
'22
'23
'24*
'25*
total
funders
16
18
17
24
24
21
17
18
10

13 of 49 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 37% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.

From the IRS filings of GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 49 funders by total. Association, not causation. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.

How concentrated its funding is

GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION leans on a few funders — its largest provides 26% of grant income and the top three 63%; half comes from just 2 funders.

the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left

37% of the income these shares are computed over arrives through pass-through sponsors or from payers whose filings do not say what kind of payment it is. Concentration is still measured over all of it, because the money is real; what it does not support is a claim about how many institutions have chosen to fund GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION.

26%
largest funder
63%
top three
~6
effective funders

Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 53% · 2018 33% · 2019 26% · 2020 26% · 2021 31% · 2022 29% · 2023 41% — diversifying over time.

“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.

How long its funders stay

38% of GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 65% give in more than one year at all.

first grant+1y+2y+3y+4y+5y+6y

Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year. Measured to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving — a funder cannot be counted as lapsed in a year most filers have not reached.

Where its funders are

94% of GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION's grant income comes from California funders.

MT
NY
NV
PA
NJ
CT
CA
DE
AZ
OK
TX

In-state vs out-of-state, by year

’17
’18
’19
’20
’21
’22
’23
California out of state home

Funder states come from each funder’s own filing. $2.9M arriving through sponsors registered in 8 states is excluded from the map and the split above: a sponsor holds money on a donor’s behalf, so its registered address would place those dollars somewhere no donor need ever have been. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.

04Its place in the field

Against its field

GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION holds deeper cash reserves than three-quarters of the 13,754 health nonprofits its size.

Operating margin−61% · bottom quartile
Months of reserve17.6mo · top quartile
Revenue growth (annualized)−8% · bottom quartile

this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 13,754 health nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2024

Organizations like GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Organizations whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over every organization in the US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.

In California

Csnk2a1 Foundation75%Cure Gm1 Incorporated72%Jonahs Gsd 1b Research Foundation72%North American Society for the Study of Celiac Disease71%The Biomedical Research Institute of Southern California71%Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope70%Destroy Duchenne70%The Alfred E Mann Foundation for Scientific Research70%

Nationally

Csnk2a1 Foundation75%NGLY1 Foundation75%Hugo W Moser Research Institute at Kennedy Krieger Inc74%Mila's Miracle Foundation74%Global Down Syndrome Foundation74%The Glaucoma Foundation Inc72%Cure Gm1 Incorporated72%Cure Sanfilippo Foundation72%
05Profile & governance

Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.

Where the money goes

92% of spending goes to programs.

Program 92%Management 8%Fundraising 0%

Governance

7
board members
100%
independent
✓Conflict-of-interest policy–Whistleblower policy–Document retention–Board reviewed the 990–Audited financials

Public support

53%

Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.

Footprint & structure

Files a return copy in 1 state

CA

Screen this organization

A dated, signed PDF of the compliance screen for GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION: IRS status (Business Master File, Publication 78, auto-revocation), the OFAC sanctions lists, the Internal Revenue Bulletin, and California registration, with the Rev. Proc. 2018-32 §8.01 reliance elements stated element by element. Generated from the current files at the moment you download it.

A paid feature, included from the $75 plan up. Sign in to download.

Screens are triage, not determinations; a source that cannot be read reports not screened, never clear. Screen this nonprofit · How the screen works · on the API as GET /api/screening/{ein}?format=pdf

Questions and answers

Who funds GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION?
GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION (California) receives grants from 49 organizations whose IRS filings report $7,761,578 to it, the largest being CHARLES AND HELEN SCHWAB FOUNDATION ($2,000,000). 32 of them have funded it in more than one year.
How many funders does GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION have?
IRS filings report 49 organizations giving $7,761,578 in grants to GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION, 32 of which have funded it in more than one year.
Who is the largest funder of GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION?
CHARLES AND HELEN SCHWAB FOUNDATION is the largest funder on record, with $2,000,000 in grants. The full list of funders is on this page.
How can an organization like GRACE SCIENCE FOUNDATION find more funders?
Start with the funders already giving here, then look at the foundations that back similar organizations in California. The funding by cause and by state pages list the largest funders for a given area and how to approach them.

These figures are read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML: this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2017–2024), and the filings of 49 funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. Trends on this page end at FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving; later years are shown and marked, and move no figure. Data on this page was exported October 14, 2026. What this page cannot tell you · view filing