· Private foundation
Harry & Sadie Lasky Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k17 grants · $337k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $330k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JEWISH UNITED FUND | $170,000 |
| AMERICAN TECHNION SOCIETY | $60,000 |
| FRIENDS OF ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES | $50,000 |
| ISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND | $50,000 |
| ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE | $30,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF HAIFA UNIVERSITY | $25,000 |
| SHALVA | $25,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM | $25,000 |
| ILLINOIS HOLOCAUST MUSEUM | $25,000 |
| KESHET | $20,000 |
| HILLEL INTERNATIONAL | $20,000 |
| SPERTUS COLLEGE AND MUSEUM | $20,000 |
| FRIENDS OF ISRAEL DISABLED VETS-BEIT HALOCHEM | $20,000 |
| THE ARK | $20,000 |
| IDA CROWN JEWISH ACADEMY | $18,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $196k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 11% of Harry & Sadie Lasky Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 68% of the giving stays in IL; read by stated purpose it is 57% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
31 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- JUJEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO8× · 2017–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +13%
- ALANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE8× · 2017–2024 · $186k · revenue +78%
- SISHALVA INC8× · 2017–2024 · $178k · revenue +114%
Funded once
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 promote, benefit, and support Jewish religious, charitable & educational activities in Israel and the USA.
To provide an education based program in israel for college age jewish young adults that will instill students with a sense of purpose, commitment & pride about
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
Support the hebrew univ. of jerusalem, israel's foremost center of higher edu. & research.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Leket Israel Inc and the most unlike its peers is American Friends of Hospice of the Upper Galilee. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 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. 18 of the 33 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 JEWISH UNITED FUND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC ↗
- Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds SHALVA INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF ISRAEL DISABLED VETERANS INC ↗
- Who funds HILLEL THE FOUNDATION FOR JEWISH CAMPUS LIFE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN SOCIETY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA ↗
- Who funds KESHET ↗
- Who funds MAOT CHITIM OF GREATER CHICAGO INC ↗
- Who funds ISRAEL CANCER RESEARCH FUND INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF HOSPICE OF THE UPPER GALILEE ↗
- Who funds THE JEWISH FOUNDATION FOR THE RIGHTEOUS INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF LEKET ISRAEL INC ↗
- Who funds NEW ISRAEL FUND ↗
- Who funds YIVO INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds AVODAH THE JEWISH SERVICE CORPS INC ↗
- Who funds North Shore Auxiliary of Jewish Child and Family Services ↗
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 Communal Fund · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Harry & Sadie Lasky Foundation 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 Harry & Sadie Lasky Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Harry & Sadie Lasky 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.