Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Goodness and Kindness Charitable Trust

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$366k
Granted FY2018
54
Grants FY2018
7
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What you fund
0186% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

Religion$365kArts & Culture$60kHealth$56kHuman Services$26kFood & Nutrition$10kCivil Rights$5kEducation$3kInternational$3kOther$0
02FY2018 · 54 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k41 grants · $77k
  • $10k–50k12 grants · $239k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$1,800
Median grant
7
States reached
$4.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$50,000
TORAH ANYTIME$37,500
PROJECT ANI MAAMIN FOUNDATION$30,000
YESHIVA KETANA OF QUEENS$26,000
FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH INSTITUTIONS$25,000
YESHIVA OHAVEI TORAH$21,500
CONGREGATION OHEL YITZCHOK$18,450
AMUDIM COMMUNITY RESOURCES$18,000
Individual grant recipient$16,000
CHAI LIFELINE$14,700
NER ISRAEL RABBINICAL COLLEGE$11,800
TORAS HAMISHPACHA$10,000
LAHAV OF NORTH AMERICA$10,000
IN HIS IMAGE CHARITABLE TRUST$7,200
THE WOMENS NETWORK FOR SINGLE PARENTS$7,100
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–18, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER: $1k → 20%AVIGDORS HELPING HAND: $3k → 13%AVIGDOR'S HELPING HAND: $3k → 13%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$460k · 27 repeat orgs$134k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +58% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.

27 repeat relationships — 27 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 25 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
16

Total granted

$460k
$34k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+58%
0%

Still filing today

37%
6%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $101k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18
ReligionEducationInternationalHuman ServicesHealthCivil RightsOther

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

  • TI
    TorahAnytimeCom Inc
    2× · 2017–2018 · $50k · revenue +272%
  • CL
    CHAI LIFELINE INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $25k · revenue +58%
  • TH
    TORAS HAMISHPACHA TAHAREINU
    2× · 2017–2018 · $20k · revenue +516%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $11k
  • AS
    AIRMONT SHUL
    one grant, 2017 · $9k
  • PR
    PROJECT REFUAH INC
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue -92%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
American Friends of Yeshiva Aish Hatorah
3
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
4
The Nochim & Rivka Zeldes Foundation
5
Sherit Isroel
6
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

7
American Friends of Amshinover Yeshiva Jerusalem Inc

Support of religious schools in Israel

International
8
American Friends of Even Yisroel Charitable Foundation
Philanthropy
9
Zohar Hatorah Inc

Religious School

Religion
10
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
11
American Friends of Ner Yaakov Inc

To provide financial support for organizations of talmudic study and advanced torah learning. assitance includes providing food and other needs to the students of advance talmudic studying and advanced torah learning

12
Ahavas Torah V'chesed
Philanthropy

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshiva Beth Abraham of Jerusalem Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Friends of the Pittsburgh Institutions. 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 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number19%0%<5yr14%4%5–10yr20%28%10–20yr19%36%20–35yr13%14%35–55yr16%18%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value19%0%<5yr14%2%5–10yr20%52%10–20yr19%12%20–35yr13%15%35–55yr16%20%55yr+

The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 7% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
7%
4/54
the rest of the field
10%
11,857/120,706

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.

04the grantee network

26 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 26 of the 70 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/26
Grantees still filing
16/26
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

THE FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH INSTITUTIONS — $60,000 · OtherTHE FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH INSTITUTIONSIndividual grant recipient — $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientYESHIVA KETANA OF QUEENS — $41,500 · OtherYESHIVA KETANA OF QUEENSCONGREGATION OHEL YITZCHOK — $28,430 · OtherCONGREGATION OHEL YITZCHOKIndividual grant recipient — $25,910 · OtherIndividual grant recipientNER ISRAEL RABBINICAL COLLEGE INC — $23,600 · OtherNER ISRAEL RABBINICAL COLLEGE INCBAIS YAAKOV OF QUEENS — $19,400 · OtherBETH MEDRASH GOVOHA OF AMERICA — $15,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient — $12,800 · OtherIN HIS IMAGE CHARITABLE TRUST — $12,200 · Other+40 more — $76,518 · Other+40 morePROJECT ANI MAAMIN FOUNDATION INC — $55,000 · ReligionPROJECT ANI MAAMIN FOUNDAT…TorahAnytimeCom Inc — $50,000 · ReligionTorahAnytimeCom IncTORAS HAMISHPACHA TAHAREINU — $20,000 · ReligionTORAS HAMISHPACHA TAHAREIN…LAHAV OF NORTH AMERICA INC — $16,500 · ReligionLAHAV OF NORTH AMERICA INC+3 more — $2,410 · ReligionAMUDIM COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC — $25,500 · HealthAMUDIM CO…CHAI LIFELINE INC — $24,900 · HealthCHAI LIFE…YESHIVA OHAVEI TORAH OF RIVERDALE INC — $21,500 · EducationJEM INC — $2,000 · EducationBNOS MALKA ACADEMY — $1,300 · Education+2 more — $750 · EducationTHE WOMANS NETWORK FOR SINGLE PARENTS — $15,700 · Civil RightsPROJECT REFUAH INC — $5,000 · InternationalAMERICAN FRIENDS OF SHALVA ISRAEL INC — $2,000 · InternationalAVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC — $5,000 · Human ServicesAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER — $1,000 · Human ServicesROFEH CHOLIM CANCER SOCIETY INC — $5,400 · Philanthropy
Other$365,858Religion$143,910Health$50,400Education$25,550Civil Rights$15,700International$7,000Human Services$6,000Philanthropy$5,400

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTHE FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH INSTITUTIONS — $60,000 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetPROJECT ANI MAAMIN FOUNDATION INC — $55,000 over 2y, 22% of budgetTorahAnytimeCom Inc — $50,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetAMUDIM COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC — $25,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC — $24,900 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVA OHAVEI TORAH OF RIVERDALE INC — $21,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTORAS HAMISHPACHA TAHAREINU — $20,000 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetLAHAV OF NORTH AMERICA INC — $16,500 over 2y, 12% of budgetTHE WOMANS NETWORK FOR SINGLE PARENTS — $15,700 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetROFEH CHOLIM CANCER SOCIETY INC — $5,400 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT REFUAH INC — $5,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetAVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC — $5,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF SHALVA ISRAEL INC — $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MINYAN AVREICHIM — $1,800 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBNOS MALKA ACADEMY — $1,300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER — $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTORAH ACADEMY OF BOCA RATON INC — $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF CHASDEI LEV — $360 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetYESHIVA BETH ABRAHAM OF JERUSALEM INC — $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NETIVOT HORAAH — $250 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA — $108 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
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 FRIENDS OF THE PITTSBURGH INSTITUTIONS
  • Who funds PROJECT ANI MAAMIN FOUNDATION INC
  • Who funds TorahAnytimeCom Inc
  • Who funds AMUDIM COMMUNITY RESOURCES INC
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC
  • Who funds YESHIVA OHAVEI TORAH OF RIVERDALE INC
  • Who funds TORAS HAMISHPACHA TAHAREINU
  • Who funds LAHAV OF NORTH AMERICA INC
  • Who funds THE WOMANS NETWORK FOR SINGLE PARENTS
  • Who funds ROFEH CHOLIM CANCER SOCIETY INC
  • Who funds PROJECT REFUAH INC
  • Who funds AVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF SHALVA ISRAEL INC
  • Who funds JEM INC
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MINYAN AVREICHIM
  • Who funds Rosh Chodesh Project
  • Who funds BNOS MALKA ACADEMY
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER

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.

The Ojc FundNY41.1× affinity27 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Caroline & Joseph S Gruss Life Monument Funds Inc · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · Mutual of America Foundation · Fridman-Hellman Foundation Inc · The Norman and Julia Bobrow Family Foundation · Maalot · The Basch Family Foundation

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 Goodness and Kindness Charitable Trust 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
2021222324
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 0%
  • Torah Academy of Boca Raton Inc0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
typical government reliance, FY2024

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Goodness and Kindness Charitable Trust?

Find your warmest path to Goodness and Kindness Charitable Trust through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 70 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $905k of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2018, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph