· Charitable trust
Machon by Charitable Trust
To carry on charitable, religious, scientific, literary or educational activities and to otherwise help people in need, either directly or via contributions to other tax exempt organizations that conduct similar support activities.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 29 grants below total $1,198,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,249,000 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $51,000 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 $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k21 grants · $566k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $625k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TIFERETH SHMUEL | $150,000 |
| CHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| BNOT CHAYA ACADEMY | $100,000 |
| TAL ACADEMY | $100,000 |
| TAFKID | $75,000 |
| BONIM LAMOKOM | $50,000 |
| MANHATTAN HIGH SCHOOL | $50,000 |
| ZICHRON SHOLOM REFAL | $38,000 |
| MENUCHA SERVICES | $36,000 |
| HATZOLAH FLATBUSH | $36,000 |
| YESHIVA SHAAREI ZION | $36,000 |
| LEV WITH LOVE | $36,000 |
| BNEI AHARON | $36,000 |
| MACHANANYIM | $36,000 |
| CONGRAGATION EZER YEHUDA | $36,000 |
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 (FY24–24, $90k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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.
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.
To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.
Religious School
To provide academic excellence in both limudei kodesh and secular studies.
To provide secondary high school education in Brooklyn, NY
To provide financial assistance to jewish educational and charitable causes.
Religious Teaching
Education services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Machanayim Inc and the most unlike its peers is Camp Extreme D/B/a Project Extreme. 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 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 12% of your grantees by number, and just 14% 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.
17 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. 17 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 YESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK ↗
- Who funds BNOT CHAYA ACADEMY CORP ↗
- Who funds CHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LAPID YESHIVA INC ↗
- Who funds MENUCHA CHESED SERVICES CORP ↗
- Who funds MACHANAYIM INC ↗
- Who funds Lev with Love Inc ↗
- Who funds FLATBUSH VOLUNTEERS OF HATZOLOH INC ↗
- Who funds FRESH START CENTER ↗
- Who funds AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds BINA STROKE AND BRAIN INJURY ASSISTANCE INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIR ↗
- Who funds CAMP EXTREME D/B/A PROJECT EXTREME ↗
- Who funds AVIGDORS HELPING HAND INC ↗
- Who funds SHULAMITH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS INC ↗
- Who funds NE EMAN FOUNDATION USA ↗
- Who funds QUALITY OF LIFE IN MEMORY OF SHILOM NEUMAN ↗
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 · Jewish Communal Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Cross River Community Foundation · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · The Yad Charity Foundation · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York Inc · Jewish Federation of Cleveland · Fjc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust
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 Machon by 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 Machon by Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to Machon by 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.