Cote Saint-Luc, QC · Charitable organization
Experience Juive / Jewish Experience
To promote and encourage jewish education.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ZICHRON CHAIM | C$960 |
| SHEARIM | C$100 |
| HOTSOLA | C$100 |
| VARIOUS | C$36 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Where your grant dollars land — at home and around the world.
Your giving at home — 72% of grant dollars (C$18k). The 28% that went abroad (C$7k) is mapped below.
Beyond home — 28% of all-years giving (C$7k)
0 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same T3010 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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.
7 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2021, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (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 FY2021, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$136 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
- BJBETH JACOB2× · 2017–2018 · C$7k · revenue +43%
- KKKOLLEL KESSER TORAH3× · 2017–2019 · C$3k · revenue +13%
- ZCZICHRON CHAIM3× · 2019–2021 · C$2k · revenue +21%
Funded once
- YFYESOMIN FUNDone grant, 2020 · C$6k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · C$736
- TGTESHIVA GEDOLAgraduatedone grant, 2019 · C$720 · revenue +30%
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.
Raising funds for jewish education in the west island of montreal
The charity provides scholarship to needy students
Provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to follow religious courses.
The charity operates an elementary and high school for jewish girls
Funds provided for students desirous of studying advanced Talmudic and Torah law at Mercaz Hatorah Rabbinical Seminary in Jerusalem and other similar institutions.
To advance religion by providing financial assistance to jewish boys and men interested in pursuing high religious studies.
Provide scholarships and financial assistance to deserving students studying at lelov yeshiva.
Provide scholarsheps and assistance to deserving students to continue their studies at mesivta torah temimah.
Provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses given at yeshivat wiznitz.
Provide scholarships & assistance to deserving students to enable them to study bible and other religious courses at college shor yoshuv.
To provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses at belz yeshiva
Provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to enable them to follow religious courses given at zichron moshe
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshiva Gedolah L'ecole D'etudes Superieures De Montreal and the most unlike its peers is Canadian Friends of Kupat Hair. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 20 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 · My Charity Fund · Vinegar Family Foundation · Shmilu and Sari Rosenberg Foundation · Zichron David and Pesie Grunberger Fund · Charité Tzedakah Montréal Charity Tzedakah Montreal · Jack and Doris Bistricer Charitable Foundation · Moral Arc Foundation · Heitner Charitable Foundation · Hatzolas Yisroel D'Arizal · La Fondation Chevra Thilim Pinsker Kinyan Torah/The Chevra Thilim Pinkser Kinyan Torah Foundation · The David and Judy Rothschild 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.