Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Jack & Pearl Resnick Foundation

Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$240k
Granted FY2026still arriving
10
Grants FY2026still arriving
2
States reached
$56k
Largest
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 2025.

Health$782kReligion$702kCivil Rights$450kHuman Services$252kArts & Culture$180k
02FY2026 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2026

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $129k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $111k
$19,800
Median grant
2
States reached
$5.3M
Total assets

Largely a single collection: about 96% of reported assets are State Of Israel Bonds.

Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLAL - THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING$55,500
ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE$55,000
ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE$27,500
MORSELIFE FOUNDATION$19,800
Individual grant recipient$19,800
THE AMI-DA INSTITUTE$18,000
FILM SOCIETY LINCOLN CENTER$11,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL PHILHARMONIC$11,000
SUTTON PLACE SYNAGOGUE$11,000
DOROT INC$11,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–26, $283k) 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. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $20k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%MORSELIFE FOUNDATION: $18k → 11%DOROT INC: $11k → 17%DOROT: $10k → 17%DOROT INC: $10k → 17%DOROT: $10k → 17%DOROT: $10k → 17%DOROT: $10k → 17%DOROT: $10k → 17%DOROT: $10k → 17%DOROT: $10k → 17%DOROT: $10k → 17%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 12 repeat orgs$63k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2026, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
1

Total granted

$2.5M
$25k

Still filing today

67%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
ReligionHuman ServicesArts & CultureCivil RightsHealthOther
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

  • CN
    CLAL-THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP INC
    10× · 2017–2026 · $506k · revenue +17%
  • AL
    ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
    10× · 2017–2026 · $505k · revenue +78%
  • MF
    MORSELIFE FOUNDATION INC
    10× · 2017–2026 · $182k · revenue +18%

Funded once

  • CC
    COMPREHENSIVE CANCER RESEARCH CENTER AT AECOM
    one grant, 2025 · $25k
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
Dorot Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Jewish Life Foundation
—
3
Abraham & Florence Mendel Foundation
—
4
Yad Laniyim
Philanthropy
5
The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life Inc
Religion
6
The Nochim & Rivka Zeldes Foundation
—
7
Abraham and Lillian Rosenberg Foundation
—
8
University of Judaism Foundation
—
9
Eastern European Jewish Heritage Foundation
Philanthropy
10
Redlich Horwitz Foundation
—
11
Aishel Hatzedek
International
12
American Jewish Legacy Inc
Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Clal-the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 15 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE BURTON P & JUDITH B RESNICK FOUNDATION: $395,000 · OtherTHE BURTON P & JUDITH B RESNICK FOUNDATIONALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $227,500 · OtherALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINETEMPLE BETH EL: $162,000 · OtherTEMPLE BETH ELJEWISH CENTER FOR THE UNITED NATIONS: $101,000 · OtherJEWISH CENTER FOR THE UNITED NATIONSFILM SOCIETY LINCOLN CENTER: $80,000 · OtherFILM SOCIETY LINCOLN CENTER+2 more: $44,800 · OtherCLAL-THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP INC: $505,500 · ReligionCLAL-THE NATIONAL JEWI…THE AMI-DA INSTITUTE INC: $18,000 · ReligionANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $505,000 · Civil RightsANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGU…MORSELIFE FOUNDATION INC: $181,800 · Human ServicesMORSELIFE FO…DOROT INC: $101,000 · Human ServicesDOROT INCThe Hebrew Home for Aged at Riverdale: $162,000 · HealthAmerican Friends of Israel Philharmonic Orchestra: $101,000 · Arts & CultureFILM AT LINCOLN CENTER INC: $21,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$1,010,300Religion$523,500Civil Rights$505,000Human Services$282,800Health$162,000Arts & Culture$122,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCLAL-THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP INC: $505,500 over 10y, 1.8% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $505,000 over 10y, 0.1% of budgetTHE BURTON P & JUDITH B RESNICK FOUNDATION: $395,000 over 9y, 41% of budgetMORSELIFE FOUNDATION INC: $181,800 over 10y, 0.3% of budgetThe Hebrew Home for Aged at Riverdale: $162,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Friends of Israel Philharmonic Orchestra: $101,000 over 10y, 0.3% of budgetDOROT INC: $101,000 over 10y, 0.1% 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 CLAL-THE NATIONAL JEWISH CENTER FOR LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP INC ↗
  • Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
  • 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 ↗
  • Who funds THE AMI-DA INSTITUTE INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Jack & Pearl Resnick Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Jack & Pearl Resnick Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 15 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Jack & Pearl Resnick’s filings →

    More from the funding graph