Skip to content
Sig and Mimi Feiger Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Sig and Mimi Feiger Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$669k
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
7
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

International$1.7MReligion$164kPhilanthropy$110kCivil Rights$55kArts & Culture$50kEducation$9kOther$0
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $21k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $148k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $500k
$25,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES$150,000
FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES$150,000
CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL$100,000
STAND WITH US$50,000
JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO$50,000
OPENDOR MEDIA$40,000
JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA$25,000
CLARION PROJECT INC$25,000
HONEST REPORTINGCOM INC$20,000
COLEL CHABAD$18,000
ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
LINCOLNWOOD JEWISH CONGREGATION$8,000
HATIKVAH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC$5,000
JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY$5,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 74% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%JEWISH NEWS SYNDICATE: $10k → 8%STAND WITH US: $50k → 14%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $100k → 6%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $140k → 17%COLEL CHABAD: $18k → 20%HATIKVAH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC: $5k → 8%CLARION PROJECT INC: $30k → 14%JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA: $25k → 14%JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY: $5k → 11%OPENDOR MEDIA: $40k → 13%CHEDER LUBAVITCH HEBREW DAY SCHOOL: $3k → 14%JEWISH NEWS SYNDICATE: $10k → 8%STAND WITH US: $50k → 14%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $85k → 6%HONEST REPORTINGCOM INC: $20k → 17%HATIKVAH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC: $5k → 8%CLARION PROJECT INC: $25k → 14%JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA: $25k → 14%OPENDOR MEDIA: $40k → 13%CHEDER LUBAVITCH HEBREW DAY SCHOOL: $3k → 14%STAND WITH US: $50k → 14%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $35k → 6%HONEST REPORTINGCOM INC: $20k → 17%AMERICAN ISRAEL EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%OPENDOR MEDIA: $25k → 13%CHEDER LUBAVITCH HEBREW DAY SCHOOL: $3k → 14%STAND WITH US: $25k → 14%CENTRAL FUND OF ISRAEL: $25k → 6%HONEST REPORTINGCOM INC: $10k → 17%AMERICAN ISRAEL EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $55k → 14%ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $10k → 17%AMERICAN ISRAEL EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $50k → 14%ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $10k → 17%LINCOLNWOOD JEWISH CONGREGATION: $8k → 14%ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $5k → 17%LINCOLNWOOD JEWISH CONGREGATION: $8k → 14%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 15 repeat orgs$158k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +27% since the first grant, against -51% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
1

Total granted

$2.0M
$140k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
-51%

Still filing today

80%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
InternationalArts & CultureReligionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • FF
    Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Inc
    4× · 2021–2024 · $450k · revenue +102%
  • CF
    Central Fund of Israel
    4× · 2021–2024 · $245k · revenue +98%
  • IE
    ISRAEL EMERGENCY ALLIANCE
    4× · 2021–2024 · $175k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM
    one grant, 2023 · $140k · revenue -51%
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 Jewish Agency for Israel

The jewish agency binds jews across ideologies and civilizations together in a worldwide jewish family with israel at its center. it provides the global framework for aliyah, ensures global jewish safety, strengthens jewish identity and…

—
2
Foundation for Conservative Judiasm of South Florida
—
3
University of Judaism Foundation
—
4
Friends of Institute for Zionist

The organization seeks to reinforce the foundations of israel as a jewish and democratic state. it acts to promote programs to educate the israeli public on the importance of both values and to demonstrate how each contributes to and…

International
5
Idf Memorial Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Sherit Isroel
—
7
Voices United for Israel

Educational information regarding Israel and the Middle East.

International
8
Jewish Electorate Institute

The jewish electorate institute (jei) is an independent, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization that surveys, interprets, reports, and educates the public about the perspectives, voting behaviors, and motivations of the american jewish…

Civil Rights
9
American Israel Public Affairs Committee

To strengthen and expand the u.s.-israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the united states and israel.

International
10
New Jewish Narrative Inc

To support a strong and secure israel and to carry out public information activities on the middle east peace issues in the united states.

International
11
Pro-Israel America United

The organization's major purpose was to educate americans on us-israeli relations, encourage advocacy, and promote civic engagement.

International
12
Us Middle East Project Inc

The organization's mission is to engage in non partisan analysis of u.s. foreign policy in the middle east, with special emphasis on the middle east peace process, and to present policymakers in the united states, in the region and in the…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County Inc; the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Israel Defense Forces. 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

14 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. 14 of the 18 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)
14/14
Grantees still filing
9/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $624,850 · InternationalFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCESFoundation for the Defense of Democracies Inc: $450,000 · InternationalFoundation for the Defense of Democracies IncCentral Fund of Israel: $245,000 · InternationalCentral Fund of IsraelISRAEL EMERGENCY ALLIANCE: $175,000 · InternationalISRAEL EMERGENCY ALLIANCEAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $140,000 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM+3 more: $100,000 · International+3 moreOPENDOR MEDIA INC: $105,000 · ReligionZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $25,000 · ReligionJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $105,000 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY INC: $5,000 · PhilanthropyCLARION PROJECT INC: $55,000 · Arts & CultureHONESTREPORTINGCOM INC: $50,000 · Arts & CultureIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · OtherCOLEL CHABAD: $18,000 · OtherLINCOLNWOOD JEWISH CONGREGATION: $16,000 · OtherCHEDER LUBAVITCH HEBREW DAY SCHOOL INC: $9,000 · Other
International$1,734,850Religion$130,000Philanthropy$110,000Arts & Culture$105,000Other$63,000

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 budgetFRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: $624,850 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetFoundation for the Defense of Democracies Inc: $450,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetCentral Fund of Israel: $245,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetISRAEL EMERGENCY ALLIANCE: $175,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM: $140,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOPENDOR MEDIA INC: $105,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $105,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCLARION PROJECT INC: $55,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetHONESTREPORTINGCOM INC: $50,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetJEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA: $50,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN ISRAEL EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA: $25,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHATIKVAH EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY INC: $5,000 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Fidelity Investments …
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Sig and Mimi Feiger Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sig and Mimi Feiger Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get 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 Sig and Mimi Feiger Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Sig and Mimi Feiger Family 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 18 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 Sig and Mimi Feiger Family’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