Toronto, ON · Charitable organization
Abraham Kahn
The charity maintained an educational program to assist students in enhancing their knowledge and expertise in various areas pertaining to judaic studies.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k3 grants · C$15k
- C$10k–50k2 grants · C$37k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION | C$21,919 |
| BIKUR CHOLIM | C$15,000 |
| ACHIM TORONTO | C$8,000 |
| AHAVAT YISRAEL | C$4,500 |
| OHR CHAYA | C$2,050 |
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 +25% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$10k went to new ones.
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.”
Backed again, and grew
- JHJEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION4× · 2021–2024 · C$57k · revenue +75%
- SZSHAAREI ZION2× · 2022–2023 · C$23k · revenue +25%
- BCBIKUR CHOLIM2× · 2023–2024 · C$18k · revenue -11%
Funded once
- SZSHAAREI ZIONone grant, 2021 · C$5k · revenue -73%
- BHBEIS HATAVSHILone grant, 2021 · C$3k · revenue -75%
- TRTHE RICHMOND HILL COUNTRY SHULgraduatedone grant, 2021 · C$2k · revenue +66%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent CRA 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 matches that aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To relieve poverty by providing reasonable financial means for food shelter and other supplies or services to needy persons in israel
To provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses at belz yeshiva
Administered the charitable activities of the zolty family and others for the advancement of education and jewish religion and loans to the needy.
To advance education by providing scholarships and financial assistance to students at mosdos belz school in israel. to relieve poverty by providing financial assistance and interest-free loans to the poor. and to undertake activities…
The charity collected funds from the public for the purpose of providing scholarships for deserving students attending haichel hatorah b'zion institutions.
Maintained a religious school for the training and instruction of religious scholars maintained a house of worship in compliance with the requirements and practices of the jewish faith in the orthodox tradition.
The charity provides scholarships and assistance to needy students to enable them to study at yeshiva toras chalm
Providing scholarships to poor and low income students in israel.
Poverty relief to help people in need
The charity maintained an elementary school for the teaching of the moral and religious principles of the jewish orthodox faith
The charity provides religious education for underpriveleged children in israel
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ohr Chaya Charitable Organization and the most unlike its peers is Kupas Hachesed Meoroth. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own CRA 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 2017–2024, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.
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.
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Gross Family Foundation · Moral Arc Foundation · Zichron Binyomin Charity Foundation · Heitner Charitable Foundation · The Jewish Legacy Charitable Foundation · The Koenig Family Foundation · The Thomas Hofstedter Family Foundation · Ari and Naomi Klein Charitable Trust · The B&C Zy Gezunt Charitable Foundation · J & H Feldman Charitable Foundation · The IV Charitable Foundation · Schofam Charitable Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.