· Public charity
Lakewood Cheder School Inc
Organization provides religious and secular education for elementary age children.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 44 grants below total $1,223,605 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,514,603 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $290,998 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 · FY2024
- Under $10k9 grants · $63k
- $10k–50k31 grants · $531k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $340k
- $250k+1 grant · $290k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CONGREGATION KEREN ORAH | $290,250 |
| BAIS YAAKOV OF JACKSON | $158,000 |
| TOMCHEI SHABBOS | $115,000 |
| CHASDIE LEV | $66,500 |
| RABBEIM APPRECIATION FUND | $46,400 |
| DERECH HACHAIM FUND | $33,230 |
| AGUDATH ISRAEL OF GREENSPRING | $25,000 |
| YESHIVA GEDOLA OF ELKINS PARK | $24,200 |
| KNESSES BAIS LEVI | $24,000 |
| CONGREGATION NACHLAS SHIMON | $23,000 |
| ZICHRON MOSHE | $22,550 |
| BAS MIKROH | $22,400 |
| CONGREGATION GATES OF MERCY | $22,050 |
| JOAN DACHS BY | $21,000 |
| BETH MEDRASH GOVOHA | $20,175 |
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 (FY17–24, $54k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 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 +40% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
47 repeat relationships — 21 still active in FY2024, 26 since wound down; 19 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, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $555k 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
- TSTOMCHEI SHABBOS D'LAKEWOOD INC8× · 2017–2024 · $822k · revenue +180%
- BYBAIS YAAKOV OF JACKSON INC2× · 2023–2024 · $623k · revenue +64% · 26% of their budget
- YOYESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC7× · 2017–2024 · $169k · revenue +17%
Funded once
- VIVEROMAMTANU INCone grant, 2022 · $71k · revenue +12%
- AIAGUDATH ISRAEL OF ILLINOISone grant, 2017 · $42k · revenue -17%
- SGSTAM GEMILAS CHESED FUND INCone grant, 2017 · $22k
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.
Parochial elementary school with a focus on sephardic tradition.
To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.
The organization operates a religious/parochial high school and college in lakewood, nj.
Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.
Providing jewish and secular education for high school aged girls.
Providing jewish education to high school age students.
To provide religious Jewish education.
Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.
Operation of a parochial elementary school, providing education services to students
Operation of a parochial grade school in lakewood, new jersey.
To provide religious education and services to our students in the tradition of the orthodox jewish faith
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Congregation Bnos Yaakov Inc and the most unlike its peers is Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago. 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 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 18% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
41 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. 41 of the 93 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 TOMCHEI SHABBOS D'LAKEWOOD INC ↗
- Who funds BAIS YAAKOV OF JACKSON INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC ↗
- Who funds VEROMAMTANU INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA SHAAREI OORAH INC ↗
- Who funds MESIVTA OF CLIFTON INC ↗
- Who funds CONGREGATION BNOS YAAKOV INC ↗
- Who funds MADRAIGOS INC ↗
- Who funds AGUDATH ISRAEL OF ILLINOIS ↗
- Who funds BAIS SHAINDEL ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO CHESED FUND ↗
- Who funds NACHLAS BAIS YAAKOV ↗
- Who funds DERECH HACHAIM FUND INC ↗
- Who funds SERVICES FOR CHILDREN WITH HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE ↗
- Who funds SWC MUSEUM CORP ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds Yeshiva Gedolah of Elkins Park ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA SHAAREI ARAZIM ↗
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 · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Communal Fund · Zichron Btz Tzedakah Foundation · Regina Goldwasser Foundation · Toras Chesed Inc · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Jewish Federation of Cleveland · The Jmg 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 Lakewood Cheder School 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.
- Cheder Toras Zev — 22% of income from government
- Bnos Melech of Lakewood Inc — 21% of income from government
- Yeshiva Toras Aron Inc — 8% of income from government
- Meiras Bais Yaakov Inc — 7% of income from government
- Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Inc — 5% of income from government
- Tiferes Yisroel Inc — 5% of income from government
- Bais Yaakov of Jackson Inc — 3% of income from government
- Nachlas Bais Yaakov — 2% 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 Lakewood Cheder School Inc?
Find your warmest path to Lakewood Cheder School 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.