Cote Saint-Luc, QC · Charitable organization
Centre Beth Hamidrash
Organiser administrer et maintenir une congrégation dont les fins sont la charité l'enseignement l'éducation la religion ou le bien-être.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k1 grant · C$3k
- C$10k–50k2 grants · C$27k
- C$50k–250k1 grant · C$55k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| INSTITUT YAVNE | C$54,555 |
| ZICHRON CHAIM CHARITY | C$15,900 |
| COMMUNAUTÉ SEPHARADE UNIFIEE DU QUEBEC | C$11,000 |
| CONGREGATION CHOUVA ISRAEL | C$2,700 |
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.
5 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 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, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$3k 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
- IYINSTITUT YAVNE6× · 2019–2024 · C$242k · revenue +149%
- CSCOMMUNAUTÉ SEPHARADE UNIFIEE DU QUEBEC5× · 2020–2024 · C$49k · revenue +28%
- CSCOMMUNAUTÉ SÉPHARADE DE CÔTE ST- LUC BETH RAMBAM5× · 2018–2023 · C$27k · revenue +37%
Funded once
- CYCONGREGATION YESHIVA GEDOLAone grant, 2020 · C$2k
- RRRELIEF RESSOURCESgraduatedone grant, 2021 · C$2k · revenue +59%
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.
Synagogue
Organisations religieuses
Promouvoir la culture sepharade - support aux ainés et famille nece ssiteuse - maintenir un lieu de priére adéquat
Promouvoir les etudes religieuses juives et mettre en place des activites pour les jeunes de la communaute juive. aider les familles necessiteuses (paniers de provisions payment de factures ou de loyer en retard.
Promouvoir l'étude de torah et la formation des futurs dirigeants religieux supporter la pratique les besoins religieux culturelles et traditionnelles de la communauté juive assistance pour les nécessiteux dans la communauté juive
Études toraniques activités religieuses de prières et rituels religieux culture juive
To carry on a school for religious studies and to pursue the advancement of religion and rituals of jewish interest.
Organiser et maintenir une synaguogue avec l'object de la pratique et l'avancement de la religion.
To operate a school for higher talmudic studies
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Communauté Sépharade de Côte St-Luc Beth Rambam and the most unlike its peers is Montréal Le soulagement Ressources Relief Ressources Montréal. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
7 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. 7 of the 8 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.
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: Jewish Community Foundation of Montreal / La Fondation Communautaire Juive de Montréal · Rayjo Charitable Trust · Canadahelps Canadon
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.