Montreal, QC · Private foundation
The Viliam Frankel Family Charitable Foundation / la Fondation de Charite de la Famille Viliam Frankel
The principal objectives of the charity is to receive & maintain a fund or funds and apply from time to time all or part there of and/or income therefrom for charitable purposes in canada.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNITED HATZOLAH | C$33,608 |
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 +270% since the first grant, against +26% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 3 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, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$34k 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
- TDTHE DAVID AND JUDY ROTHSCHILD FOUNDATION3× · 2018–2023 · C$1.6M · revenue +359% · 46% of their budget
- NFNE'EMAN FOUNDATION CANADA2× · 2018–2019 · C$72k · revenue -27%
- MCMIZRACHI CANADA2× · 2020–2023 · C$50k · revenue +270%
Funded once
- YGYESHIVA GEDOLA OF MONTREALone grant, 2023 · C$210k · revenue +17%
- JHJEWISH HERITAGE FOUN.graduatedone grant, 2020 · C$73k · revenue +68%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · C$48k
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 provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses at belz yeshiva
To make donations to charitable organizations
The charity provides religious education for underpriveleged children in israel
Provide scholarships to needy students persuing studies of higher education in israel.
Support of jewish education and institutions
The charity collected funds from the public for the purpose of providing scholarships for deserving students attending haichel hatorah b'zion institutions.
Solicitation of donations
The charity provides scholarships and assistance to needy students to enable them to study at yeshiva toras chalm
Provide scholarships and assistance to deserving students to continue their religious courses given at mosdos gur in jerusalem israel.
Poverty relief to help people in need
Provided funds to qualified donees to help them carry out their work
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mizrachi Organization of Canada and the most unlike its peers is Sauvetage De Montreal Hatzoloh. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 26 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 THE DAVID AND JUDY ROTHSCHILD FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA GEDOLA OF MONTREAL ↗
- Who funds JEWISH HERITAGE FOUN. ↗
- Who funds NE'EMAN FOUNDATION CANADA ↗
- Who funds MIZRACHI CANADA ↗
- Who funds UNITED HATZOLAH ↗
- Who funds BROTHERS OF MERCY ↗
- Who funds UNITED HATZOLAH ↗
- Who funds Kupas hachesed Meoroth ↗
- Who funds CANADIAN FRIENDS OF SHEBA ↗
- Who funds ZICHRON D&P FUND ↗
- Who funds MENUCHA VESHIMCCHA ↗
- Who funds BETH RIVKAH ↗
- Who funds VMM ↗
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 George and Sylvia Frankel Charitable Foundation · The George Kohn Charitable Foundation / la Fondation Charitable George Kohn · Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto · Conam Charitable Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Montreal / La Fondation Communautaire Juive de Montréal · 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.