Skip to content
Unger-Pfeffer Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Unger-Pfeffer Family Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$47k
Granted FY2023
31
Grants FY2023
7
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0177% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Human Services$109kReligion$70kPhilanthropy$8kArts & Culture$5kHousing & Shelter$218Education$200International$200Health$113Other$0
02FY2023 · 31 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k30 grants · $36k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
$218
Median grant
7
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$11,000
Individual grant recipient$7,599
THE DONOR FUND$7,200
Individual grant recipient$6,650
KOLLEL JEWISH LEARNING CENTER$4,200
NERC$4,000
CONGREGATION POALE ZEDECK$1,100
AMUDEI OHR$1,000
YESHIVATH BETH MOSHE$718
YOUNG ISRAEL$536
GEMACH OF JACKSON$360
NCSY$360
UNITED JEWISH FEDERATION$360
BNAI EMUNOH CHABAD$300
YESHIVA TORAS CHAIM$250
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 (FY23–23, $455) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 21% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%GEMACH OF JACKSON: $360 → 11%BONEI OLAM: $95 → 20%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.
$140k · 7 repeat orgs$85k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +84% since the first grant, against +14% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2023, 3 since wound down; 26 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
14

Total granted

$140k
$54k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+84%
+14%

Still filing today

14%
21%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 24% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’23
EducationInternationalHuman ServicesReligionPhilanthropyHealthOther
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

  • MD
    MISC DONATIONS TO THE INDIGENT
    5× · 2017–2021 · $108k
  • KJ
    KOLLEL JEWISH LEARNING CENTER
    4× · 2018–2023 · $16k
  • CP
    CONGREGATION POALE ZEDECK
    4× · 2017–2023 · $7k

Funded once

  • MK
    MESIVTA KEREN ORAHgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +37%
  • CS
    CONGREGATION SUPPORTERS OF TORAH INC
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
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
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
—
3
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
4
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
5
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
6
American Friends of Kehillas Shivtei Yeshurun Inc

Assistance to establish a community in ramat beit shemesh, israel, founded upon torah principles, prayer, justice, charity and kindness to all peoples. to encourage and promote jewish religious activities.

Religion
7
American Friends of Yeshivat Nachalat Yossef

The organization will provide financial assistance to educational institutions that promote the observance of the jewish religion, its laws and traditions, and sacred texts, including yeshivat nachalat yossef, located in jerusalem, israel.

Religion
8
Meir Isa Bracha Inc

To help establish and maintain agendas for Hebrew and religious enlightenment

Religion
9
American Friends of Hamesorah Talmud Torah Inc

Charity and education in u.s. and israel

—
10
American Friends of Oseh Chayil

To further jewish education in israel

Religion
11
Bais Yehuda Perach Rochel Foundation
Public Benefit
12
Friends of Yeshiva Beer Abraham

Furtherance of jewish education

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Yeshiva Dmir Inc; the most unlike its peers is American Friends of Baruch Umarpeh. 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

13 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. 13 of the 49 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)
12/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MISC DONATIONS TO THE INDIGENT: $108,090 · OtherMISC DONATIONS TO THE INDIGENTKOLLEL JEWISH LEARNING CENTER: $16,395 · OtherKOLLEL JEWISH LEARNING CENTERCONGREGATION SUPPORTERS OF TORAH INC: $15,000 · OtherCONGREGATION SUPPORTERS OF TORAH INCIndividual grant recipient: $11,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $7,599 · OtherCONGREGATION POALE ZEDECK: $7,265 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $6,650 · Other+28 more: $15,451 · Other+28 moreMESIVTA KEREN ORAH: $25,000 · EducationMESIVTA KERE…+2 more: $300 · EducationDONORS FUND INC: $7,200 · PhilanthropyJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $600 · Philanthropy+1 more: $100 · PhilanthropyCHASDEI AVOS: $1,050 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $50 · InternationalGEMACH OF JACKSON INC: $360 · Human ServicesBonei Olam Inc: $95 · Human ServicesNER GAVRIEL FUND INC: $200 · ReligionYESHIVA OF FAR ROCKAWAY: $100 · ReligionCHAI LIFELINE INC: $18 · Health
Other$197,450Education$25,300Philanthropy$7,900International$1,100Human Services$455Religion$300Health$18

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 budgetMESIVTA KEREN ORAH: $25,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetDONORS FUND INC: $7,200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHASDEI AVOS: $1,050 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGEMACH OF JACKSON INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNER GAVRIEL FUND INC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBURGH: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BARUCH UMARPEH: $100 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSEPHARDIC GAN TORAT EMET INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $95 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA DMIR INC: $50 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $18 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.

  • Who funds MESIVTA KEREN ORAH ↗
  • Who funds DONORS FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds CHASDEI AVOS ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds GEMACH OF JACKSON INC ↗
  • Who funds NER GAVRIEL FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds HILLEL ACADEMY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BARUCH UMARPEH ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA OF FAR ROCKAWAY ↗
  • Who funds SEPHARDIC GAN TORAT EMET INC ↗

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.

The Ojc FundJewish Communal FundHerman & Helen Lipsit…The Ezra Charitable T…The Jmg FoundationNational Society for …Jack Adjmi Family Fou…National Philanthropi…Paypal Charitable Giv…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Ojc FundNY21× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Herman & Helen Lipsitz Charitable Trust · The Ezra Charitable Trust · The Jmg Foundation · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Unger-Pfeffer Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Unger-Pfeffer Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 10%
  • Mesivta Keren Orah: 10% 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 · 0–25%
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 Unger-Pfeffer Family Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Unger-Pfeffer 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 49 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Unger-Pfeffer 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