· Public charity
Jewish Charity Review Inc
Jewish charity reviews mission is to alleviate and diminish the harmful effects of poverty on jewish families by providing assistance and support directly to these families and to organizations that service them.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $45,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $129,061 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $84,061 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $38k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNITED MOSDOS TORAH VYIRAH | $18,000 |
| YESHIVA SHAAR HATALMUD | $10,000 |
| YESHIVATH RADIN | $10,000 |
| ZICHRON MOSHE | $7,000 |
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 (FY18–18, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Grants abroad, by region — $59k on the FY2025 return
Schedule F, as filed: 1 region, all to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: INDIGENT GRANTS
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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 +48% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
- IKIMRAI KOHAIN CONGREGATION7× · 2017–2024 · $223k
- CACONGREGATION ATERES TZVI INC2× · 2023–2024 · $40k
- UMUNITED MOSDOS TORAH VEYIRAH YERUSHOLYIM INC2× · 2022–2025 · $38k
Funded once
- CCCONGREGATION CHEVRA SHAS INCone grant, 2017 · $49k
- CZCONGREGATION ZICHRON REFOEL INCone grant, 2024 · $40k
- YCYESHIVA CHEMDAS HATORAH INCone grant, 2023 · $20k
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.
Operation of a parochial grade school in lakewood, new jersey.
Masores bnos yisroel is a religious elementary school providing quality education for the children of lakewood nj.
Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.
Parochial elementary school with a focus on sephardic tradition.
Providing jewish and secular education for high school girls.
To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.
Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.
Parochial secondary school.
The organization operates a religious/parochial high school and college in lakewood, nj.
Operation of a parochial elementary school, providing education services to students
Providing jewish and secular education for high school aged girls.
Yeshiva toras aron is a religious elementary school providing quality education for grades k-8 for the children of lakewood nj.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cong Oros Bais Yaakov of Lakewood and the most unlike its peers is Friends in Need Charitable Foundation Inc. 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 27 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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 29 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 DONORS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds LAKEWOOD CHEDER SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds AHAVAS TZEDOKOS CORP ↗
- Who funds Friends In Need Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds MEHKERE ERES INC ↗
- Who funds CONG OROS BAIS YAAKOV OF LAKEWOOD ↗
- Who funds BNOS MELECH OF LAKEWOOD INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA KOL TORAH INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA SHAGAS ARYEH 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 · Donors Fund Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Regina Goldwasser Foundation · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Zichron Btz Tzedakah Foundation · Tifferet Moshe Inc · Dirshu International Inc · Jewish Studies Enrichment Inc · Jdh Foundation · David Rosenbaum 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 Jewish Charity Review 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Bnos Melech of Lakewood Inc — 21% of income from government
- Yeshiva Shagas Aryeh Inc — 9% of income from government
- Yeshiva Kol Torah Inc — 3% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Jewish Charity Review Inc?
Find your warmest path to Jewish Charity Review Inc 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.