Thornhill, ON · Private foundation
RAJE (Canada)
To preach and advance the teacings of the jewish faith and the religious tenets doctrines and observances and cultured associated with that faith.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| INSTITUTE OF TORAH EDUCATION | C$12,650 |
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 +8% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 4 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
- IOINSTITUTE OF TORAH EDUCATION7× · 2018–2024 · C$139k · revenue +373%
- BBBNOS BAIS YAAKOV2× · 2022–2023 · C$13k · revenue +8%
- TCTORONTO CHEDER4× · 2018–2021 · C$10k · revenue +25%
Funded once
- JHJEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION OF CANADAgraduatedone grant, 2020 · C$1k · revenue +68%
- MCMEGINEI CHANA ASSOCIATION OF TORONTOone grant, 2023 · C$1k · revenue -19%
- BHBAIS HATAVSHILone grant, 2022 · C$180 · revenue -64%
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.
The charity operates a religious high school of instruction for jewish girls
To promote precepts of orthodox judaism and training of rabbinic leaders
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.
Jewish education for women part-time education for ladies / religious education
Operating a postsecondary institution for educating boys in orthodox jewish faith.
To establish an orthodox jewish high school for boys devoted to the study of the laws tenets and doctrines of the jewish faith.
To provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses at belz yeshiva
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.
To provide scholarship and assistance to needy students to enable them to follow religious courses at yeshiva toldos aharon for the furtherance of religious study
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
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Thornhill Torah Educational Centre and the most unlike its peers is Meginei Chana Association of Toronto. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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.
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 INSTITUTE OF TORAH EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds BNOS BAIS YAAKOV ↗
- Who funds TORONTO CHEDER ↗
- Who funds CANADIAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAS NOVOMINSK ↗
- Who funds BETH JACOB HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS ↗
- Who funds JEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION OF CANADA ↗
- Who funds MEGINEI CHANA ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO ↗
- Who funds BAIS HATAVSHIL ↗
- Who funds AISH HA TORAH OF TORONTO ↗
- Who funds TTEC ↗
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 Chaim Moshe Friedman Memorial Fund · My Charity Fund · 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.