Parkland, FL · Private foundation
Levy Family Foundation
Made contributions to other charities in the year.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MIFAL KLITA | C$5,045 |
| HAMILTON SPCA | C$372 |
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 +102% since the first grant, against +38% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 12 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, 7% 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
- DDANI6× · 2017–2022 · C$62k · revenue +102%
- CHChabad Hamilton5× · 2017–2022 · C$18k · revenue +48%
- BCBAIS CHAYA MUSHKA SCHOOL5× · 2017–2022 · C$15k · revenue +19%
Funded once
- CFCHABAD FLAMINGOgraduatedone grant, 2017 · C$43k · revenue +70%
- MKMIFAL KLITA CANADAgraduatedone grant, 2023 · C$22k · revenue +59%
- KSKAV SHALOM KHMgraduatedone grant, 2023 · C$20k · revenue +35%
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.
Providing scholarships to poor and low income students in israel.
To establish an orthodox jewish high school for boys devoted to the study of the laws tenets and doctrines of the jewish faith.
Scholarships were granted to qualified students wh desired to continue their education. our agent in isreal rabbi '...' must approve all scholarship applications to ensure that the students qualify for financial assisstance due to faily…
To relieve poverty by providing reasonable financial means for food shelter and other supplies or services to needy persons in israel
Support of jewish education and institutions
The charity provides religious education for underpriveleged children in israel
To support with and participate with the scholarships provided by yeshivat kehilat yackov in brooklyn new york
To provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses at belz yeshiva
Charitable activities to relieve poverty
Provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses given at mosdos gur in jerusalem israel.
Fostering and conducting religious jewish educating in bc
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chabad At Flamingo Inc and the most unlike its peers is William Osler Health System. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
22 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. 22 of the 40 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 DANI ↗
- Who funds CHABAD FLAMINGO ↗
- Who funds MIFAL KLITA CANADA ↗
- Who funds KAV SHALOM KHM ↗
- Who funds Chabad Hamilton ↗
- Who funds BAIS CHAYA MUSHKA SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds OHALI YOSEPH YITZCHAK ↗
- Who funds Chabad at Western ↗
- Who funds ONTARIO HOME FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH ↗
- Who funds Yeshivas Nefesh Dovid ↗
- Who funds CANADIAN FRIENDS OF CUBAN JEWRY ↗
- Who funds HAMILTON SPCA ↗
- Who funds CHABAD OF WESTERN ONTARIO ↗
- Who funds CHEBAD OF WESTERN ONTARIO ↗
- Who funds MEORTH ↗
- Who funds NCSY ↗
- Who funds CZCA ↗
- Who funds HAITI MAMA CANADA ↗
- Who funds CANADIAN MEGAN DAVID ADAM FOR ISRAEL ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM OSLER HEATH SYSTEM ↗
- Who funds OHR CHAYA ↗
- Who funds Yad L'achim ↗
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: Zichron Binyomin Charity Foundation · Heitner Charitable Foundation · The Estaron Foundation · Rayjo Charitable Trust · Fieldgate Cares Foundation · The Weitz Family Foundation · Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto · My Charity Fund · Chabad Lubavitch of Southern Ontario · Bais Tefilloh Franklin · The IV Charitable Foundation · Jack and Doris Bistricer 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.