Skip to content
Nissim Scharf Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Nissim Scharf Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$26k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$14k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Religion$50kHealth$17kPhilanthropy$8kHuman Services$5kFood & Nutrition$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $14k
$1,800
Median grant
3
States reached
$39k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TEMPLE SHAREY TEFILO ISRAEL$13,935
PILLAR CARE CONTINUUM$5,000
Individual grant recipient$2,500
TEMPLE BNAI ABRAHAM$1,800
INTERFAITH FOOD PANTRY$1,500
COMMUNITY FOOD BANK$500
PLAY FOR PINK$300
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, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%THE ECUMENICAL LAY COUNCIL OF NORTHPORT-EAST NORTHPORT: $500 → 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.
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.

62%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$52k · 7 repeat orgs$31k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
5

Total granted

$52k
$12k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+12%
+76%

Still filing today

57%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 23% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’22’23’24
PhilanthropyHealthFood & NutritionCrime & LegalRecreation & SportsHuman 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

  • PC
    PILLAR CARE CONTINUUM
    2× · 2023–2024 · $10k · revenue +23%
  • CF
    Community Food Bank Of New Jersey Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1k · revenue +12%
  • PF
    PLAY FOR PINK INC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $750 · revenue +106%

Funded once

  • PF
    Pillar Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +348%
  • JF
    JEWISH FEDERAL OF GREATER
    one grant, 2023 · $4k
  • EM
    EXPECT MIRACLES FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue +34%
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 Emmanuel Cancer Foundation Inc

The mission of the emmanuel cancer foundation (ecf) is to provide new jersey families faced with pediatric cancer a place to turn for comfort and relief through free supportive services tailored to each family.

—
2
Connecticut Cancer Foundation Inc

To provide funds to benefit families affected by cancer and to support cancer research and education.

—
3
Children's Cancer Family Foundation of Ne Wi Inc

Raise money to support families and children suffering from childhood cancer.

Health
4
Pinky Swear Foundation

To provide financial support to families with children battling cancer.

Human Services
5
National Pediatric Cancer Foundation Inc

National pediatric cancer foundation (npcf) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to funding research to eliminate childhood cancer. our focus is to fund research to find less toxic, more targeted therapies by partnering with leading…

Health
6
Gastro Intestinal Research Foundation Inc

The GI Research Foundation works to treat, prevent, and cure digestive diseases. In collaboration with the physicians and scientists at the University of Chicago Digestive Diseases Center, we fund innovative clinical and laboratory…

Health
7
Personal Care Products Council Foundation Inc

The foundation is set up to deliver one program - look good feel better. the mission of this nationwide program is to improve the quality of life of women, men, and teens undergoing cancer treatment by offering advice on how to cope with…

Health
8
Nick Strong Foundation Inc

To fund various initiatives,including research for pediatric germ cell tumors, assistance for families going through cancer treatment, and providing holiday gifts for pediatric cancer patients at boston children's hospital and jimmy fund.

Health
9
The Cancer Foundation Inc

The cancer foundation's mission is to alleviate the financial burden of cancer.

Health
10
Fox Chase Cancer Center Foundation

To prevail over cancer, marshaling heart and mind in bold scientific discovery, pioneering prevention and compassionate care.

Health
11
The Childrens Cancer Foundation Inc

The Childrens Cancer Foundation, Inc. (Organization) is a charitable, not-for-profit corporation committed to funding locally-based researchers, programs and facilities until every child is assured a healthy cancer free future. The…

—
12
Childrens Cancer Therapy Development Institute

To make all childhood cancers universally survivable by delivering new treatments to clinical trials through scientific discovery.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Interfaith Food Pantry Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Jamie Deutsch Foundation. 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

11 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. 11 of the 17 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEMPLE SHAREY TEFILO: $33,935 · OtherTEMPLE SHAREY TEFILOTEMPLE SHAREY TEFILO ISRAEL: $13,935 · OtherTEMPLE SHAREY TEFILO ISRAELJEWISH FEDERAL OF GREATER: $3,600 · OtherJEWISH FEDERAL OF GREATERTHE SAMFUND INC: $3,500 · OtherTHE SAMFUND INCIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · Other+2 more: $2,800 · OtherPILLAR CARE CONTINUUM: $10,000 · HealthPILLAR CARE C…+1 more: $100 · HealthEXPECT MIRACLES FOUNDATION: $2,500 · PhilanthropyEXPECT MI…COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NEW JERSEY: $2,500 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY…The Jamie Deutsch Foundation: $2,000 · PhilanthropyThe Jamie…Pillar Foundation: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsINTERFAITH FOOD PANTRY INC: $1,500 · Food & NutritionCommunity Food Bank Of New Jersey Inc: $1,000 · Food & NutritionPLAY FOR PINK INC: $750 · Crime & LegalECUMENICAL LAY COUNCIL OF NORTHPORT- EAST NORTHPORT INC: $500 · Human Services
Other$60,270Health$10,100Philanthropy$7,000Recreation & Sports$5,000Food & Nutrition$2,500Crime & Legal$750Human Services$500

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 budgetPILLAR CARE CONTINUUM: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPillar Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 9.3% of budgetEXPECT MIRACLES FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NEW JERSEY: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Jamie Deutsch Foundation: $2,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetINTERFAITH FOOD PANTRY INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCommunity Food Bank Of New Jersey Inc: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPLAY FOR PINK INC: $750 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetECUMENICAL LAY COUNCIL OF NORTHPORT- EAST NORTHPORT INC: $500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetChildren's Hospital Corporation: $100 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Nissim Scharf Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nissim Scharf Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 10%
  • Children's Hospital Corporation: 10% of income from government
  • Pillar Care Continuum: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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 17 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Nissim Scharf’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