Toronto, ON · Charitable organization
Jewish Education Program Charitable Foundation
The jewish education program offers a wide spectrum of programs classes and experiences in adult education.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ACHIM TORONTO | C$7,687 |
| JEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION | C$2,000 |
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 +75% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$0 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 FOUNDATION6× · 2019–2024 · C$21k · revenue +423%
- ATACHIM TORONTO2× · 2023–2024 · C$10k · revenue +99%
- TATALMUDICAL ACADEMY OF TORONTO MISHKAN2× · 2017–2018 · C$6k · revenue +6%
Funded once
- BHBETH HA-MIDRASH AGUDATH ISRAEL (south)one grant, 2022 · C$5k · revenue -9%
- YMYESHIVA MISHKAN HATORAHone grant, 2018 · C$1k
- IFINSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED JUDAIC STUDIESone grant, 2023 · C$1k · revenue -16%
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 establish an orthodox jewish high school for boys devoted to the study of the laws tenets and doctrines of the jewish faith.
Established and operated as an institution of jewish training and education particularly in the fields of rabbinic talmudic halachic studies.
The institute of torah education advances religion by teaching students doctrines observances and culture associated with the orthodox jewish faith.
To promote precepts of orthodox judaism and training of rabbinic leaders
Operated an orthodox jewish high school geared to students who need and would benefit from individual attention not available in existing orthodox jewish high schools.
The charity maintained an elementary school for the teaching of the moral and religious principles of the jewish orthodox faith
Operate a school for teaching religious studies
Provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses given at mosdos gur in jerusalem israel.
The charity operates a religious high school of instruction for jewish girls
The school educates high-school age male students in both secular and jewish studies in a non-conventional way offering more attention than normal to each student.
To provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses at belz yeshiva
To advance and teach the religious tenets doctrines observances and culture associated with the jewish faith.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Congregation Chasidei Bobov and the most unlike its peers is Achim Toronto. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 16 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.
- Who funds JEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ACHIM TORONTO ↗
- Who funds TALMUDICAL ACADEMY OF TORONTO MISHKAN ↗
- Who funds BETH HA-MIDRASH AGUDATH ISRAEL (south) ↗
- Who funds BETH OLOTH CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds CONGREGATION CHASIDEI BOBOV ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA STUDENT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds YESHIVAS KESER TORAH ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED JUDAIC STUDIES ↗
- Who funds YESHIVAS NACHALAS ZVI ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA BENI ZION ↗
- Who funds AGUDATH ISRAEL OF TORONTO ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA GEDOLAH ZICHRON SHMAYAHU ↗
- Who funds RAJET AMEINU ↗
- Who funds KUPAS HACHESED MEOROTH ↗
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 Sharing Foundation · The M & J Charitable Trust · The Dan-Hytman Family Foundation · The Koenig Family Foundation · The Gross Family Foundation · The B&C Zy Gezunt Charitable Foundation · The Daniel and Vera Rubinstein Charitable Foundation · My Charity Fund · The George Hofstedter Family Foundation · The Friedberg Charitable Foundation · The Chaim Moshe Friedman Memorial Fund · Fieldgate Cares 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.