North York, ON · Charitable organization
RAJET Ameinu
We conduct outreach to the russian speaking jewish community in toronto by conducting classes on jewish topics in russian.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k3 grants · C$6k
- C$10k–50k1 grant · C$11k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| JEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION OF CANADA | C$10,500 |
| K.A.H. FOUNDATION | C$4,500 |
| ACHIM | C$997 |
| ZICHRON BINYOMIN CHARITY FOUNDATION | C$235 |
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 +52% since the first grant, against -2% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 1 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, 71% 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
- JHJEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION OF CANADA6× · 2019–2024 · C$34k · revenue +423%
- AACHIM3× · 2022–2024 · C$3k · revenue +52%
- BOBETH OLOTH CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION2× · 2018–2019 · C$680
Funded once
- JJEPone grant, 2022 · C$3k · revenue -40%
- YNYESHIVAS NACHLAS TZVIone grant, 2022 · C$2k · revenue -2%
- TTTHE TORONTO CHEDERone grant, 2022 · C$1k · revenue -2%
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.
Support of jewish education and institutions
The charity provides scholarships and assistance to needy students to enable them to study at yeshiva toras chalm
Issued scholarships for religious education
Provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses given at mosdos gur in jerusalem israel.
To establish an orthodox jewish high school for boys devoted to the study of the laws tenets and doctrines of the jewish faith.
The charity maintained an elementary school for the teaching of the moral and religious principles of the jewish orthodox faith
The charity operates a religious high school of instruction for jewish girls
The charity provides religious education for underpriveleged children in israel
Maintained a religious school for the training and instruction of religious scholars maintained a house of worship in compliance with the requirements and practices of the jewish faith in the orthodox tradition.
The institute of torah education advances religion by teaching students doctrines observances and culture associated with the orthodox jewish faith.
The charity collected funds from the public for the purpose of providing scholarships for deserving students attending haichel hatorah b'zion institutions.
Administered the charitable activities of the zolty family and others for the advancement of education and jewish religion and loans to the needy.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Eitz Chaim Schools and the most unlike its peers is Toronto Cheder. 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.
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: The Matlow Family Charitable Trust
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.