Skip to content
Pearl Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Pearl Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$196k
Granted FY2024still arriving
19
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$45k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0168% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$558kInternational$36kHuman Services$2kPhilanthropy$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k14 grants · $58k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $139k
$4,800
Median grant
3
States reached
$9.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$45,150
CONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIM$44,250
BAIS CHUNA$19,350
BETH RIVKA$17,380
BEIS YAAKOV OF QUEENS$12,500
YESHIVA TIFERES MOSHE$9,950
CHEDER AT THE OHEL$8,000
YESHIVA SANZ$6,750
Individual grant recipient$6,400
TIFERETH ISRAEL$4,800
OHOLEI TORAH$4,395
CHABAD OF SCOTTSDALE$3,600
Individual grant recipient$3,000
Individual grant recipient$2,750
RSA$2,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CHABAD OF SCOTTSDALE: $4k → 11%YESHIVA OHR ELCHONON CHABAD: $21k → 14%GAN CHAMESH: $6k → 6%YESHIVA SANZ: $7k → 11%YESHIVA OF CENTRAL QUEENS: $10k → 13%TIFERETH ISRAEL: $5k → 14%CHEDER AT THE OHEL: $8k → 20%NEW JERSEY JEWISH INSTITUTIONS: $4k → 7%RACHEM NA: $13k → 11%YESHIVA OHR ELCHONON CHABAD: $8k → 14%GAN CHAMESH: $4k → 6%TOMCHEI TEMIMIM: $6k → 20%OHOLEI TORAH: $4k → 20%DARCHEI TORAH: $90k → 13%OHOLEI TORAH: $4k → 20%DARCHEI TORAH: $30k → 13%OHOLEI TORAH: $3k → 20%BEIS YAAKOV OF QUEENS: $13k → 13%CONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIM: $52k → 20%YESHIVA TIFERES MOSHE: $10k → 13%CONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIM: $48k → 20%YESHIVA TIFERES MOSHE: $6k → 13%CONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIM: $44k → 20%BEIS YAAKOV OF QUEENS: $5k → 13%BAIS CHUNA: $40k → 20%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BIALLA: $36k → 20%CONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIM: $31k → 20%BAIS CHUNA: $25k → 20%BAIS CHUNA: $19k → 20%BAIS CHUNA: $18k → 20%BAIS CHUNA: $10k → 20%CONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIM: $8k → 20%CHASDEI EZRIEL YEHUDA: $45k → 20%CHABAD OF NORTH BROOKLYN: $3k → 20%CHASDEI EZRIEL YEHUDA: $11k → 20%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BIALA YESHIVA INC: $75k → 20%RAV CHESED: $16k → 20%RAV CHESED: $12k → 20%RAV CHESED: $9k → 20%YESHIVA MEOR HACHAIM: $6k → 20%YESHIVA MEOR HACHAIM: $3k → 20%SPINKA YESHIVA: $3k → 20%CHABAD OF GREENPOINT: $10k → 20%BNOS MENACHEM: $5k → 20%BNOS MENACHEM: $2k → 20%CHABAD OF DUMBO: $4k → 20%BETH RIVKA: $17k → 20%CONG YETEV LEV D' SATMAR: $8k → 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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$642k · 15 repeat orgs$202k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
12

Total granted

$642k
$167k

Still filing today

0%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
ReligionEducationPhilanthropyOther
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

  • CK
    CONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIM
    5× · 2020–2024 · $183k
  • DT
    DARCHEI TORAH
    2× · 2017–2018 · $120k
  • BC
    BAIS CHUNA
    5× · 2020–2024 · $112k

Funded once

  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BIALA YESHIVA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $75k · revenue +415%
  • AF
    AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BIALLA
    one grant, 2021 · $36k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $13k
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

4 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.

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 2024, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 4 of the 36 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)
4/4
Grantees still filing
2/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIM: $182,800 · OtherCONGREGATION KEHAL ADAS YEREIMDARCHEI TORAH: $120,000 · OtherDARCHEI TORAHBAIS CHUNA: $112,050 · OtherBAIS CHUNAIndividual grant recipient: $55,900 · OtherIndividual grant recipientRAV CHESED: $36,600 · OtherAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BIALLA: $36,000 · OtherYESHIVA OHR ELCHONON CHABAD WEST COAST TALMUDICAL SEMINARY: $29,000 · Other+25 more: $174,929 · Other+25 moreAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BIALA YESHIVA INC: $75,000 · ReligionAMERICAN FR…CHABAD OF GREENPOINT INC: $10,000 · ReligionCHABAD OF G…YESHIVA OF CENTRAL QUEENS: $10,000 · EducationCROWN HEIGHTS CHEVRA SIMCHAS SHABBOS V'YOM TOV INC: $1,430 · Philanthropy
Other$747,279Religion$85,000Education$10,000Philanthropy$1,430

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF BIALA YESHIVA INC: $75,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetYESHIVA OF CENTRAL QUEENS: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCROWN HEIGHTS CHEVRA SIMCHAS SHABBOS V'YOM TOV INC: $1,430 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 AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BIALA YESHIVA INC ↗
  • Who funds CHABAD OF GREENPOINT INC ↗
  • Who funds YESHIVA OF CENTRAL QUEENS ↗
  • Who funds CROWN HEIGHTS CHEVRA SIMCHAS SHABBOS V'YOM TOV 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 FundL&L FoundationJewish Communal FundGs Donor Advised Phil…National Philanthropi…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Ojc FundNY19.3× affinity8 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · L&L Foundation · Jewish Communal Fund · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Pearl Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pearl Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 10%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
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 Pearl Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Pearl Foundation Inc 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 36 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 Pearl’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