Skip to content
Lawrence & Ina Gumberg Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Lawrence & Ina Gumberg Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$115k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0181% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$252kPhilanthropy$175kEducation$58kReligion$8kHuman Services$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $5k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $50k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$465k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE EYE & EAR FOUNDATION$60,000
JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH$25,000
UPMC HILLMAN CANCER CENTER$15,000
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION$10,000
CATAPULT GREATER PITTSBURGH$2,500
Individual grant recipient$2,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%LIFE MALE STEAM ACADEMY: $30k → 10%JCC OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $8k → 11%CATAPULT GREATER PITTSBURGH: $3k → 11%CATAPULT GREATER PITTSBURGH: $3k → 11%CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%DR JAY PASAVANT FAMILY FOUNDATION: $1k → 11%SHADYSIDE ACADEMY: $25k → 11%MYASTHYENIA GRAVIS ASSC: $3k → 11%MYASTHYENIA GRAVIS ASSC: $2k → 11%MYASTHENIA GRAVIS ASSC: $2k → 11%MYASTHYENIA GRAVIS ASSC: $2k → 11%MYASTHYENIA GRAVIS ASSC: $2k → 11%MYASTHENIA GRAVIS ASSC: $2k → 11%THE EYE & EAR FOUNDATION: $60k → 11%THE EYE & EAR FOUNDATION OF PITTSBURGH: $56k → 11%JEWISH FEDERATION OF PGH: $25k → 11%THE EYE & EAR FOUNDATION OF PITTSBURGH: $25k → 11%JEWISH FEDERATION OF PGH: $25k → 11%JEWISH FEDERATION OF PGH: $25k → 11%JEWISH FEDERATION OF PGH: $25k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $3k → 11%JEWISH FEDERATION OF PGH: $25k → 11%CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PGH FOUNDATION: $35k → 11%CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PGH FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PGH FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PGH FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PGH FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%UPMC HILLMAN CANCER CENTER: $15k → 11%JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $25k → 11%JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $25k → 11%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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$377k · 6 repeat orgs$81k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
5

Total granted

$377k
$66k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+45%

Still filing today

50%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthPhilanthropyCommunity 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

  • EA
    EYE AND EAR FOUNDATION
    3× · 2022–2025 · $141k · revenue +33%
  • JF
    JEWISH FEDERATION OF PGH
    5× · 2017–2021 · $125k
  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION
    7× · 2017–2025 · $95k · revenue +135%

Funded once

  • LM
    LIFE MALE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGYgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue +93%
  • SS
    SHADY SIDE ACADEMYgraduated
    2× · 2017–2018 · $25k · revenue +45%
  • JO
    JCC OF GREATER PITTSBURGH
    one grant, 2020 · $8k
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
Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

The trustees of the university of pennsylvania (the "university") sees itself as having a public service mission. in such regard, the university aims to provide a rich and diverse educational environment for its students; to pioneer…

Education
2
Drexel University

Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…

Education
3
The Pittsburgh Promise Foundation

The pittsburgh promise promotes high educational aspirations among urban youth, funds scholarships for post-secondary access, and fuels a prepared and diverse regional workforce.

Philanthropy
4
The Friends of the Pittsburgh Institutions
—
5
Shadyside Hospital of Pittsburgh
—
6
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

We educate the next generation of leaders to improve the health of our society.

Education
7
Upmc Pinnacle Hospitals

Upmc pinnacle hospitals mission as a charitable organization is dedicatied to maintaining and improving the health and quality of life for all persons of the central pennsylvania area.

Health
8
Highmark Health Group

Working as an integrated system within highmark health, employees at all of ahn's care sites, including hospitals, health + wellness pavilions, primary and specialty care offices and more, are committed to improving health and promoting…

—
9
Alvernia University

Alvernia university is a catholic comprehensive university with a liberal arts foundation founded by the bernardine franciscan sisters in 1958. see continuation on schedule o.

—
10
True T Pittsburgh
Human Services
11
Springside Chestnut Hill Academy

See schedule owe are an inclusive community on a mission to inspire unbounded curiosity and independent thought in every one of our students. in a unique educational environment that extends well beyond campus, we nurture students'…

Education
12
Philadelphia Health Partnership
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh; the most unlike its peers is The Dr Jay Passavant Family Foundat. 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

8 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. 8 of the 13 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EYE AND EAR FOUNDATION: $141,000 · HealthEYE AND EAR FOUNDATIONCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION: $95,000 · HealthCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH FOUNDATIONJEWISH FEDERATION OF PGH: $125,000 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATION OF PGHUPMC HILLMAN CANCER CENTER: $15,000 · OtherUPMC HILLMAN CANCER CENTERIndividual grant recipient: $7,500 · OtherJCC OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $7,500 · Other+1 more: $3,000 · OtherLIFE MALE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY: $30,000 · EducationLIFE MALE SC…SHADY SIDE ACADEMY: $25,000 · EducationSHADY SIDE A…UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $2,500 · EducationJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $50,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDE…+1 more: $1,000 · PhilanthropyCatapult Greater Pittsburgh: $5,000 · Community Improvement
Health$236,000Other$158,000Education$57,500Philanthropy$51,000Community Improvement$5,000

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 budgetEYE AND EAR FOUNDATION: $141,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH FOUNDATION: $95,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $50,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetLIFE MALE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY: $30,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetSHADY SIDE ACADEMY: $25,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCatapult Greater Pittsburgh: $5,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DR JAY PASSAVANT FAMILY FOUNDAT: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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 Lawrence & Ina Gumberg Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lawrence & Ina Gumberg Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Lawrence & Ina Gumberg Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Lawrence & Ina Gumberg Foundation 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.

    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 13 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Lawrence & Ina Gumberg’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