· Public charity
Global Center of Gur Inc
To distribute funds to orthodox jewish synagogues and to needy individuals around the world.
Read this first · the figures below need context
76% of Global Center of Gur Inc’s FY2023 grant dollars went to Friends Of Mosdot Goor, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2023 names 6 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2022, the last year Global Center of Gur Inc named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $919k. It is dated, not current.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 11 grants below total $918,798 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,087,996 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $3,169,198 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2022
- $10k–50k5 grants · $73k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $846k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WERDIGER FAMILY FOUNDATION INC | $241,795 |
| FRIENDS OF MOSDOS GUR | $211,000 |
| KUPATH RABBI MEIR BAAL HANESS | $151,500 |
| ASEI TOV | $128,625 |
| CONG CHASDEI GUR MONSEY | $63,378 |
| ASHDOD MERCAZ CHINUCH | $50,000 |
| FRIENDS OF ARAD | $30,000 |
| BAIS YAAKOV D'CHASSIDEI GUR | $11,800 |
| AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC | $10,700 |
| CONG GER OF MANOR HEIGHTS | $10,000 |
| LIHATZILUM INC | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY18–23, $420k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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 +159% since the first grant, against +18% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2022, 7 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call). Read against FY2022, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.
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 FY2023, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- TTTALMUD TORAH DCHASIDEI GUR3× · 2017–2019 · $1.3M
- MHMERCAZ HATORAH VEHACHINCH5× · 2017–2021 · $417k
- AYAHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC6× · 2018–2023 · $415k · revenue +159%
Funded once
- CACONGREATION ATERES AVROHOMone grant, 2018 · $180k
- CDCONGREGATION DAMESEK ELIEZERone grant, 2018 · $100k
- CYCONGREGATION YESHIVA KTANA DGURone grant, 2018 · $55k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS 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 matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
We support religious organizations in the us and israel by providing grants.
Charitable organization for the welfare, development, and relief of communities that are overburdened with poverty and help fund judaic studies
We make grants to support orthodox jewish education.
Provides finacial assistance to needy individuals and to religious, charitable organizations
To award financial grants to religios orthodox jewish organizations and to help by financial means, the needy, sick and disabled people.
To provide financial assistance to religious,educational and charitable organizations worldwide to help them continue their activities.
To help disadvantaged children, widows and orphans by providing food, clothing, supplies and grants to charitable tax exempt organizations.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ahavat Yisroel Humanity Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Werdiger Family Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 24 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 35 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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 FRIENDS OF MOSDOT GOOR ↗
- Who funds AHAVAT YISROEL HUMANITY INC ↗
- Who funds THE WERDIGER FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds KUPATH RAMBAHN KOLEL POLIN ↗
- Who funds Ashdod Mercaz Chinuch Inc ↗
- Who funds PROJECT REFUAH INC ↗
- Who funds LIHATZILUM INC ↗
- Who funds Kolel Shomre Hachomos of Jerusalem Inc ↗
- Who funds NACHZIK CHAZAK INC ↗
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 Ojc Fund · Friends of Mosdot Goor · Westlawn Foundation · Birchas Mordechai Charitable Foundation · Chaim Maleh Foundation · Ahavat Yisroel Humanity Inc · Park Charitable Trust · Zecher Avrohom Inc · Eastlawn Foundation · The Tzedakah Foundation · The Hatzlacha Foundation · Lart 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.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Global Center of Gur Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.