· Private foundation
Lart Charitable Trust
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Read this first · the figures below need context
83% of Lart Charitable Trust’s FY2025 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. FY2025 names 9 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2018, the last year Lart Charitable Trust named its own grantees at scale: 8 organizations, $109k. 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2018
- Under $10k13 grants · $12k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $97k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $96,980 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF SFATH EMETH YESHIVA | $1,800 |
| BAIS YAAKOV D'CHASSIDEI GUR | $1,500 |
| KUPATH RAMBAN KOLEL POLIN | $1,019 |
| GERER YESHIVA AND MESIVTA BAIS YISROEL | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| KOLLEL BAIS YISRAEL D'CHASIDEI GUR | $1,000 |
| CHAI LIFELINE | $1,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,000 |
| CONGREGATION PNEI MENACHEM | $500 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS BET SHEMESH | $500 |
| CONGREGATION BEIS MEDRASH GEVOHA | $500 |
| YESHIVA YAGDIL TORAH | $500 |
| LIKRAS | $360 |
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 (FY17–17, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 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.
23 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2018, 11 since wound down; 29 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call). Read against FY2018, 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 FY2025, 12% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $22k 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
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF SFATH EMETH YESHIVA3× · 2017–2019 · $5k · revenue +88%
- CLCHAI LIFELINE INC2× · 2017–2018 · $2k · revenue +58%
- FOFRIENDS OF YESHIVA SIFSEI TZADIK2× · 2024–2025 · $1k · revenue +29%
Funded once
- MCMENUCHA CHESED SERVICES CORPone grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +14%
- FOFRIENDS OF BAIS YISROELgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $500 · revenue +120%
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.
Furtherance of jewish education
Raise funds for charitable purposes
To foster promote and advance theological torah study, charity, and practice of orthodox judaism worldwide
To support religious, charitable, scientific, literary and/or educational programs
To provide grants to jewish religious organization in need.
To further jewish education in israel
Provide support to further jewish education
To provide grants to religious schools providing higher education
To provide support to jewish religious education in israel and around the world, and provide financial assistance to and on behalf of yeshivah beth israel tifereth menachem.
Raise funds for religious and educational institutions in the state of israel, and to provide funds to needy individuals in the state of israel.
Education and religious activities and research
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of Mosdot Goor and the most unlike its peers is Menucha Chesed Services Corp. 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 23 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 1% 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.
14 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. 14 of the 56 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 AMERICAN FRIENDS OF SFATH EMETH YESHIVA ↗
- Who funds GLOBAL CENTER OF GUR INC ↗
- Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF YESHIVA SIFSEI TZADIK ↗
- Who funds KUPATH RAMBAHN KOLEL POLIN ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MOSDOS BET SHEMESH ↗
- Who funds MENUCHA CHESED SERVICES CORP ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA IMREI EMES I ↗
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 · Chaim Maleh Foundation · Park Charitable Trust · Eastlawn Foundation · Doovin Trust · The Tzedakah Foundation · Birchas Mordechai Charitable Foundation · Zecher Avrohom Inc · The Fishoff Family Foundation · Ahavat Yisroel Humanity Inc
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 Lart 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 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Lart Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to Lart 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.