Montreal, QC · Charitable organization
Kollel Menachem
To advance and teach the religious tenets doctrines and observances associated with the jewish faith.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF CANADA | C$4,960 |
| CHABAD MONTRÉAL WEST | C$3,000 |
| CAMP GAN ISRAEL | C$2,470 |
| MAHARAM TAV FUND | C$2,400 |
| CHABAD CHAI CENTRE | C$770 |
| YOUNG JEWISH PROFESSIONALS | C$571 |
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 +70% since the first grant, against +39% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 2 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, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$5k 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
- RCRABBINICAL COLLEGE OF CANADA6× · 2018–2024 · C$47k · revenue +70%
- CCCHAI CENTRE7× · 2018–2024 · C$13k · revenue +66%
- CGCAMP GAN ISRAEL4× · 2021–2024 · C$9k · revenue ×27
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · C$3k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · C$2k
- CCCENTRE CHABAD CHABANELgraduatedone grant, 2022 · C$121 · revenue +39%
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.
Promotion of jewish culture and religion engage jewish students learning of culture
Provide scholarships to students operates torah study learning
Synagogue
To carry on a school for religious studies and to pursue the advancement of religion and rituals of jewish interest.
To provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses at belz yeshiva
To operate a synagague and promote jewish religieus and moral and ethical values and practices
Organiser et maintenir une synaguogue avec l'object de la pratique et l'avancement de la religion.
École dont la vocation est la promotion de l'éducation religieuse
Solicit receive and maintain funds to provide religious education for the purpose of advancing jewish culture and instilling a reverence for the spiritual ethical and moral values and traditions of the jewish faith.
Services religieux activites de synagogue célébrations religieuse
The charity provides religious education for underpriveleged children in israel
The charity operates a religious high school of instruction for jewish girls
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Centre Chabad Chabanel and the most unlike its peers is Maharam Tav Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 12 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: L'Organisation de la jeunesse Chabad Loubavitch/Chabad Loubavitch Youth Organization · Centre Chabad De Ville Mont Royal Chabad Centre of The Town of Mount Royal · Jewish Community Foundation of Montreal / La Fondation Communautaire Juive de Montréal · Chabad Chai Center / Centre Chabad Chai · Hatzolas Yisroel D'Arizal · My Charity Fund · Conam Charitable Foundation · Camp jardin d'Hannah (Pardas Chanah)/ Garden Of Hannah Camp (Pardas Chanah) · Congrégation Beth Chabad C.S.L. · Congregation Bais Menachem Chabad-Lubavitch · Centre chabad · Charité Tzedakah Montréal Charity Tzedakah Montreal
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.