· Private foundation
The Jack & Pearl Resnick Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k8 grants · $119k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $150k
Largely a single collection — about 96% of reported assets are State Of Israel Bonds.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CLAL - THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING | $50,000 |
| BURTON P & JUDITH RESNICK FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE | $50,000 |
| COMPREHENSIVE CANCER RESEARCH CENTER AT AECOM | $25,000 |
| TEMPLE BETH EL | $18,000 |
| MORSELIFE FOUNDATION | $18,000 |
| THE HEBREW HOME FOR THE AGED AT RIVERDALE | $18,000 |
| SUTTON PLACE SYNAGOGUE | $10,000 |
| FILM SOCIETY LINCOLN CENTER | $10,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL PHILHARMONIC | $10,000 |
| DOROT INC | $10,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $252k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 36% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +17% since the first grant, against -5% for the ones you funded once.
11 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $35k 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
- ALANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE9× · 2017–2025 · $450k · revenue +78%
- CNCLAL-THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP INC9× · 2017–2025 · $450k · revenue +17%
- MFMORSELIFE FOUNDATION INC9× · 2017–2025 · $162k · revenue +18%
Funded once
- CCCOMPREHENSIVE CANCER RESEARCH CENTER AT AECOMone grant, 2025 · $25k
- FAFILM AT LINCOLN CENTER INCone grant, 2025 · $10k · revenue -5%
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Clal-the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Burton P & Judith B Resnick Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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. 8 of the 13 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 ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds CLAL-THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds THE BURTON P & JUDITH B RESNICK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MORSELIFE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds The Hebrew Home for Aged at Riverdale ↗
- Who funds American Friends of Israel Philharmonic Orchestra ↗
- Who funds DOROT INC ↗
- Who funds FILM AT LINCOLN CENTER INC ↗
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Jack & Pearl Resnick 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 The Jack & Pearl Resnick Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Jack & Pearl Resnick 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.