Skip to content
Goodness and Kindness Charitable Trust at a glance

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0186% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its 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 its 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
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

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

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +58% since the first grant, against 0% for those 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
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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%
How this is measured

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

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. 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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshiva Beth Abraham of Jerusalem Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

26 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/26
Grantees still filing
17/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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 budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF NETIVOT HORAAH: $250 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetYESHIVA BETH ABRAHAM OF JERUSALEM INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA: $108 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, 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 Rosh Chodesh Project ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MINYAN AVREICHIM ↗
  • Who funds BNOS MALKA ACADEMY ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Ojc FundJewish Communal FundAssociated Jewish Cha…Jack Adjmi Family Fou…National Society for …Caroline & Joseph S G…Zichron Chaim Charity…Mutual of America Fou…Fridman-Hellman Found…The Norman and Julia …MaalotThe Basch Family Foun…
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

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Goodness and Kindness Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Goodness and Kindness Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Torah Academy of Boca Raton Inc: 0% 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, FY20–24
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 70 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its 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.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 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

Play a game based on Goodness and Kindness’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home