Skip to content
Pardes Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Pardes Foundation

Its FY2019 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$119k
Granted FY2019
12
Grants FY2019
2
States reached
$61k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0148% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2019.

Religion$72kOther$0
02FY2019 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k9 grants · $29k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $29k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $61k
$6,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$61,000
Cong Noam E Lizansk$19,000
Cong Zichron Shmiel Zanvil$10,000
Cong Imrei Chine Deleten$7,000
Yeshiva Keser Torah Radomsk$7,000
Individual grant recipient$6,000
Individual grant recipient$3,600
Individual grant recipient$2,500
Individual grant recipient$1,800
Individual grant recipient$500
Individual grant recipient$200
Cong Tiferes Pinchus$100
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 (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 87% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Cong Yagdil Tora: $21k → 6%Yeshiva Noam Hatorah: $2k → 13%Cong Toras Emachu: $61k → 14%Cong Zichron Shmiel Zanvil: $10k → 20%Cong Noam Hatorah: $3k → 11%Cong Noam E Lizansk: $19k → 14%Cong Zichron Shmeil Zanvil: $10k → 20%Cong Divrei Chaim: $1k → 11%Cong Toras Emachu: $7k → 14%Cong Direi Chaim: $6k → 20%Cong Nachlas Chaim Tashbar: $2k → 14%Cong Toldos Aharon: $4k → 20%Cong Imrei Chine Deleten: $7k → 14%Cong Noam E Lizansk: $4k → 20%Cong Toras Emachu: $1k → 14%Cong Toldos Aharon: $2k → 20%Cong Birchos Yosef: $200 → 14%Yeshiva Keser Torah Radomsk: $7k → 20%Cong Tiferes Pinchus: $100 → 14%Cong Kehilath Yakov: $2k → 20%Cong Noam Elimelech Lizensk: $11k → 14%Cong Kehilath Yakov: $600 → 20%Kollel Shomrei Hachomos: $500 → 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.

56%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$99k · 4 repeat orgs$80k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
6

Total granted

$99k
$46k

Still filing today

0%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2017–2019 · $69k
  • CN
    Cong Noam E Lizansk
    2× · 2018–2019 · $23k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2018–2019 · $5k

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $21k
  • CN
    CONG NOAM ELIMELECH LIZENSK
    one grant, 2017 · $11k
  • CZ
    Cong Zichron Shmeil Zanvil
    one grant, 2017 · $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
04the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2019.

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 2019, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
0/0
Grantees still filing
0/0
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $69,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCong Noam E Lizansk: $22,500 · OtherCong Noam E LizanskIndividual grant recipient: $20,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCONG NOAM ELIMELECH LIZENSK: $11,000 · OtherCONG NOAM ELIMELECH LIZENSKCong Zichron Shmeil Zanvil: $10,000 · OtherCong Zichron Shmeil ZanvilCong Zichron Shmiel Zanvil: $10,000 · OtherCong Zichron Shmiel ZanvilCong Imrei Chine Deleten: $7,000 · OtherYESHIVA KESER TORAH RADOMSK: $7,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $6,000 · Other+9 more: $15,800 · Other+9 more
Other$178,800

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Pardes’ 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