· Private foundation
Herman & Helen Lipsitz Charitable Trust
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 70% of HERMAN & HELEN LIPSITZ CHARITABLE TRUST’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k22 grants · $96k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $146k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $335k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YESHIVA SCHOOLS | $180,000 |
| FRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH | $100,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $55,000 |
| LUBAVITCH CENTER | $31,557 |
| BNEI EMUNAH CHABAD | $24,123 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| CAMP GAN ISRAEL BNEI EMUNAH CHABAD | $20,000 |
| CAMP GAN ISRAEL CHABAD OF SQUIRREL HILL | $15,000 |
| ALEPH INSTITUTE | $13,000 |
| CHABAD OF THE SOUTH HILLS | $12,097 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF LEKET ISRAEL | $10,000 |
| KOLLEL JEWISH LEARNING CENTER | $9,973 |
| Individual grant recipient | $8,293 |
| Individual grant recipient | $7,890 |
| Individual grant recipient | $7,500 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 96% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
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 +42% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
48 repeat relationships — 28 still active in FY2024, 20 since wound down; 5 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, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $41k 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
- HAHILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBURGH6× · 2017–2022 · $983k · revenue +21%
- YAYESHIVATH ACHEI TMIMIM OF PITTSBURGH5× · 2017–2024 · $443k · revenue +42%
- CACHASDEI AVOS6× · 2017–2024 · $34k · revenue +84%
Funded once
- FOFRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAone grant, 2021 · $200k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $150k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $45k
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.
To further jewish education in israel
To promote, benefit, and support Jewish religious, charitable & educational activities in Israel and the USA.
To promote, assist, and sponsor the spreading of Jewish religious education in Israel. The organization will also organize inspirational gatherings in the USA to enhance the participants' Torah knowledge.
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
To promote and support jewish religious charitable and educational activities in israel & usa.
Religious School
Furtherance of jewish education
Friends of Jerusalem's mission is to provide assistance to the needs and indigent living in Jerusalem and all of Israel.
The principal and primary intent of the organization is to support kohelet policy forum (the "forum"), a jerusalem-based non-profit policy center founded in 2012, comprised of leading academics and researchers.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Pfap Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Keren Rachaim Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 9% 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.
17 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. 17 of the 85 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 HILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
- Who funds YESHIVATH ACHEI TMIMIM OF PITTSBURGH ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF UNITED HATZALAH INC ↗
- Who funds CHASDEI AVOS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF LEKET ISRAEL INC ↗
- Who funds PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY DAY SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds OPENDOR MEDIA INC ↗
- Who funds The Keren Rachaim Fund ↗
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: Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh · Morris Charles M Tr Ua-Char · David S Shapira Foundation · Pittsburgh Jewish Pre-Kindergarten Educational Improvement Foundation · Tzedakah Foundation · Robert I Glimcher Family Foundation · The Pittsburgh Foundation · Julius L & Libbie B Steinsapir Fdn · Unger-Pfeffer Family Foundation · Perlow Family Foundation · Isadore & Yetta Joshowitz Charitable Foundation · Giant Eagle 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 Herman & Helen Lipsitz Charitable Trust 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Herman & Helen Lipsitz Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to Herman & Helen Lipsitz Charitable Trust 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.