Skip to content
Parker Jewish Institute for Health Care and Rehabilitation Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Parker Jewish Institute for Health Care and Rehabilitation Foundation

To support and benefit the parker jewish institute for health care and rehabilitation and any supporting organization operating for its benefit.

$4.2M
Granted FY2023
5
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$4.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$10MHuman Services$70kArts & Culture$34kEducation$30kReligion$10k
02FY2023 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $4,057,690, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,151,333 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $93,643 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k2 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $45k
  • $250k+1 grant · $4.0M
$18,800
Median grant
2
States reached
$106M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PARKER JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE AND REHABILITATION$4,000,000
INDIA HOME INC$26,500
BAYSIDE HISTORICAL SOCIETY$18,800
ASSOCIATION OF OF JEWISH AGING SERVICES$7,090
VOICES FOR TRUTH AND HUMANITY$5,300
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 (FY21–23, $19k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, 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%ASSOCIATION OF JEWISH AGING SERVICES: $12k → 8%ASSOCIATION OF OF JEWISH AGING SERVICES: $7k → 8%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10M · 6 repeat orgs$59k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2023, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
4

Total granted

$10M
$53k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
+12%

Still filing today

83%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
HealthEducationHuman ServicesArts & CultureOther
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

  • PJ
    PARKER JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE AND REHABILITATION
    6× · 2017–2024 · $9.7M · revenue +40%
  • BH
    BAYSIDE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
    2× · 2022–2023 · $29k · revenue +620%
  • N
    NEWYORK-PRESBYTERIANQUEENS
    3× · 2017–2019 · $19k · revenue +54%

Funded once

  • HU
    HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2020 · $30k · revenue +23%
  • NY
    NEW YORK BOARD OF RABBIS INC
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
  • NW
    NYU WINTHROP HOSPITAL
    one grant, 2018 · $7k
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
Jewish Home Lifecare Manhattan

Jewish home lifecare (d/b/a the new jewish home, manhattan), is a not-for-profit organization committed to transforming eldercare for new yorkers so they can live meaningful lives in the place they call home.

Health
2
Jewish Home of Central New York Senior Apartments Inc

Jewish home of central new york senior apartment's mission is to assure maximum independence and dignity offering a broad range of the highest quality of health, residential and community services. jewish home of central new york senior…

Housing & Shelter
3
Miami Jewish Health Systems Inc

Miami jewish health systems, inc. was incorporated to provide shelter for the elderly and develop social & health programs relating to their care. in addition, research & educational programs are conducted for the elderly to enhance their…

Human Services
4
The Hebrew Home for Aged at Riverdale

To provide long term residential healthcare, short term rehab, assisted living, and alzheimer's care for older adults.

Health
5
Montefiore New Rochelle Hospital

Mission: to heal, to teach, to discover and to advance the health of the communities we serve. values: humanity, innovation, teamwork, diversity and equity - our values define our philosophy of care. they shape our actions and motivate and…

Health
6
Menorah Home and Hospital for Aged and Infirm

Operating as menorah center for rehabilitation and nursing care, menorah is a 436-bed not-for-profit organization that is a member of mjhs health system. menorah is committed to providing exceptional sub-acute rehabilitation services and…

Health
7
St Joseph's Medical Pc

We, st. joseph's medical and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities. st. joseph's medical is a member of st. joseph's health and trinity health.

Health
8
Jewish Home Lifecare

Our mission is to empower older adults to enhance purpose and well-being through a portfolio of innovative health care services.

—
9
Jha Geriatric Services Inc

Excellence in senior care reflective of jewish values.

Health
10
Nyu Langone Hospitals

The board adopted mission statement is: nyu langone hospitals (the "hospital") will operate with new york university's medical schools a health system ("nyu langone health") devoted to excellence in patient care, education and research. in…

Health
11
The New York and Presbyterian Hospital

To be a leader in the provision of world class patient care, teaching, research, and service to local, state, national, and international communities. newyork-presbyterian hospital is one of the nation's most comprehensive, integrated…

Health
12
Fund for the Aged Inc

Our mission is to empower older adults to enhance purpose and well-being through a portfolio of innovative health care services.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Rosalind and Joseph Gurwin Jewish Geriatric Center of Long Island Inc; the most unlike its peers is Voices for Truth and Humanity Inc. 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

16 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.

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)
15/16
Grantees still filing
8/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PARKER JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE AND REHABILITATION: $9,696,814 · HealthPARKER JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE AND REHABILITATION+4 more: $92,700 · HealthNYC-METRO PHYSICIANS SERVICES: $638,530 · Other+2 more: $16,700 · OtherINDIA HOME INC: $51,500 · Housing & ShelterHOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: $30,000 · EducationASSOCIATION OF JEWISH AGING SERVICES: $18,640 · Human ServicesVOICES FOR TRUTH AND HUMANITY INC: $5,300 · Arts & Culture
Health$9,789,514Other$655,230Housing & Shelter$51,500Education$30,000Human Services$18,640Arts & Culture$5,300

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 budgetPARKER JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE AND REHABILITATION: $9,696,814 over 6y, 3.7% of budgetINDIA HOME INC: $51,500 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetUNITED HOSPITAL FUND OF NEW YORK: $38,100 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetHOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBAYSIDE HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $28,800 over 2y, 21% of budgetNEWYORK-PRESBYTERIANQUEENS: $19,300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetASSOCIATION OF JEWISH AGING SERVICES: $18,640 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetNYU WINTHROP HOSPITAL: $6,700 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMETHODIST CHURCH HOME FOR THE AGED: $6,500 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.

National Philanthropi…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA6.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Parker Jewish Institute for Health Care and Rehabilitation Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Parker Jewish Institute for Health Care and Rehabilitation Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–40%
    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 12 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $14M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Parker Jewish Institute for Health Care and Rehabilitation’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