Montreal, QC · Charitable organization
Tomchei Shabbos of Montreal
The organization collects and raise funds to assit poor and needy people especially students refugees widows and orphans by way of distribution of food packages
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k8 grants · C$38k
- C$50k–250k1 grant · C$77k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CTM | C$77,217 |
| ARIZAL | C$9,550 |
| Individual grant recipient | C$6,875 |
| MCB | C$6,000 |
| BIKUR CHOLOM | C$5,000 |
| BNAI LEVY | C$4,350 |
| CONG BELZ | C$3,456 |
| YAM HATALMUD | C$2,500 |
| MENUCHA VSIMCHA | C$500 |
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 +73% since the first grant, against +70% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 4 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, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$13k 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
- CCTM6× · 2019–2024 · C$148k · revenue +80%
- BCBIKUR CHOLIM8× · 2017–2024 · C$54k · revenue +106%
- VZVMM ZICHRON CHAIM CHARITY2× · 2018–2019 · C$33k · revenue +5%
Funded once
- GZGEMACH ZICHRON BURECH ZVIgraduatedone grant, 2018 · C$40k · revenue +244% · 38% of their budget
- SASHEVES ACHIMgraduatedone grant, 2021 · C$31k · revenue +242%
- VZVMM Zichron Chaim Charityone grant, 2017 · C$29k
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 relieve poverty by providing reasonable financial means for food shelter and other supplies or services to needy persons in israel
To provide interest free loans to needy people.
To provice interest free loand to the needy. to provide grants to qualified donees to enable them to carry on their work
This organization provides interest-free loans to persons of low income.
To provide loans without interest to needy people.
The organization donates and lends money to individuals in need
Solicitation of donations
The primary purpose of the charity is to assist needy parents in accordance with jewish religion law and practices the charity provides interest free loans to the above needy persons in persuit of the above.
Poverty relief to help people in need
To relieve poverty by providing financial assistance to families in eastern europe.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mifalei Chaim Bechesed (Mcb) 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.
17 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. 17 of the 23 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 CTM ↗
- Who funds YAD VEZER ↗
- Who funds BIKUR CHOLIM ↗
- Who funds GEMACH ZICHRON BURECH ZVI ↗
- Who funds VMM ZICHRON CHAIM CHARITY ↗
- Who funds SHEVES ACHIM ↗
- Who funds ARIZAL ↗
- Who funds MCB ↗
- Who funds MAHARAM TOV ↗
- Who funds BNAI LEVY ↗
- Who funds BETH JACOB SEMINARY ↗
- Who funds CONG BELZ ↗
- Who funds YAM HATALMUD ↗
- Who funds MESAMCHE LEV ↗
- Who funds BAIS ESTHER ↗
- Who funds MENUCHA VSIMCHA ↗
- Who funds KOLEL SHOMRA HACHOMOS ↗
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: Charité Tzedakah Montréal Charity Tzedakah Montreal · Mifalei Chaim Bechesed (McB) · Maharam Tav Fund · Hatzolas Yisroel D'Arizal · Fondation Ebs/Ebs Foundation · Fondation de la Famille Fischman Fischman Family Foundation · The Micha Life Foundation la Fondation de Vie Micha · Rosenberg Family Foundation / Fondation de la Famille Rosenberg · The M.K. Foundation/La Fondation M.K. · Zichron David and Pesie Grunberger Fund · Jewish Community Foundation of Montreal / La Fondation Communautaire Juive de Montréal · The Leo & Bina Kohn Foundation Inc./Fondation Leo & Bina Kohn Inc.
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.