· Public charity
Tifferet Moshe Inc
Research and study of the talmud and jewish code of law.
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 9 grants below total $106,514 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $686,384 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $579,870 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 $10k4 grants · $29k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $78k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHAYEI OLAM | $18,100 |
| THE JEWISH BENEVOLENT SOCIETY | $18,050 |
| Individual grant recipient | $15,000 |
| YESHIVA NACHLEI TORAH | $14,400 |
| LAKEWOOD CHEDER SCHOOL | $12,300 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NETANYA | $8,500 |
| MESIVTA OF LAKEWOOD NJ CENTER FOR JUDAIC STUDIES | $7,500 |
| BAIS REUVEN KAMINETZ | $6,414 |
| YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM | $6,250 |
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 (FY19–20, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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.
22 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down.
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, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- COCONG OROS BAIS YAAKOV OF LAKEWOOD5× · 2017–2022 · $64k · revenue +60%
- YCYESHIVA CHAYEI OLAM4× · 2021–2024 · $52k · revenue +41%
- YOYESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC6× · 2017–2024 · $47k · revenue +17%
Funded once
- YTYESHIVA TIFERES SHMUEL2× · 2019–2020 · $51k
- SCSHIRAS CHAIM INCone grant, 2023 · $7k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2022 · $7k
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.
Providing secular and religious education for elementary and high school aged students
Providing jewish and secular education for high school aged girls.
To operate a religious school for high school and post high school students.
Operation of an educational institution for preschool and elementary school-aged children, providing both religous and secular education.
A school-section 170(b)(1)(a)(ii), operating from the preschool pre-k level through high school, and chartered ny the new york state education department and board of regents.
To operate a high school offering religious instruction and general studies as well as a post high school program of talmudic studies. the school shall be run under the standards of orthodox jewish law and tradition.
Providing jewish and secular education for elementary school aged children.
To provide academic excellence in both limudei kodesh and secular studies.
Providing secular and religious education for high school aged students
Yeshiva toras aron is a religious elementary school providing quality education for grades k-8 for the children of lakewood nj.
Operation of a parochial elementary school, providing education services to students
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yeshivat Yagdil Torah Inc and the most unlike its peers is Zichron Eliezer Shalom 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 17 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 9% 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.
16 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. 16 of the 35 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 CONG OROS BAIS YAAKOV OF LAKEWOOD ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA CHAYEI OLAM ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA ORCHOS CHAIM INC ↗
- Who funds BAIS REUVEN KAMENETZ OF LAKEWOOD ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA NACHLEI TORAH INC ↗
- Who funds Bais Yaakov High School of Lakewood Inc ↗
- Who funds BNOS MELECH OF LAKEWOOD INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF NETANYA INC ↗
- Who funds CONGREGATION BNOS YAAKOV INC ↗
- Who funds ZICHRON ELIEZER SHALOM INC ↗
- Who funds MESIVTA KEREN ORAH ↗
- Who funds TORAS CHESED INC ↗
- Who funds ADERES BAIS YAAKOV INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA GEDOLAH KEREN HATORAH INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVAT YAGDIL TORAH INC ↗
- Who funds AGUDAH CAMPS 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 · Jewish Communal Fund · Toras Chesed Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Jewish Federation of Cleveland · Zichron Btz Tzedakah Foundation · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Yeshiva Shagas Aryeh Inc · David Rosenbaum Family Foundation · Joe & Eileen Sutton 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 Tifferet Moshe 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 Chayei Olam — 10% of income from government
- Mesivta Keren Orah — 10% of income from government
- Yeshiva Nachlei Torah Inc — 9% of income from government
- Yeshivat Yagdil Torah Inc — 9% of income from government
- Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Inc — 5% of income from government
- Yeshiva Gedolah Keren Hatorah Inc — 1% 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 Tifferet Moshe Inc?
Find your warmest path to Tifferet Moshe 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.