· Public charity
Torah Community Fund Inc
The organization's mission is to support orthodox jewish religious communities in israel in connection with a broad range of religious and social needs and activities, including wihtout limitation the support of religious practice and observance, physical communal infrastructure needs and social communal needs, by building and…
Read this first · the figures below need context
88% of Torah Community Fund Inc’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Pef Israel Endowment Funds Inc, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 4 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
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 FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 5 grants below total $1,861,140 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $2,943,140 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,082,000 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 · $8k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $202k
- $250k+1 grant · $1.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS IN | $1,640,840 |
| TORAH CENTER FOR HIGHER RABBI | $127,000 |
| Congregation Bais Shalom | $74,500 |
| KEREN CHASSANIM OF SAAD LTALM | $11,200 |
| KOLLEL TORAH INC | $7,600 |
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 (FY23–23, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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 — $1.1M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: CHARITABLE
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 +196% since the first grant, against +12% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 3 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, 34% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $146k 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
- CBCONGREGATION BAIS SHALOM INC4× · 2021–2024 · $285k
- IFISRAEL FOOD DISTRIBUTION INC CO MR AVI SCHOEMANN2× · 2018–2022 · $24k · revenue +196%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA TIFERET2× · 2021–2022 · $12k · revenue +29%
Funded once
- CSCONGREGATION SHAAR HASHAMAYIMone grant, 2023 · $271k
- CACONGREGATION ANSHI FALLSBURGone grant, 2021 · $22k
- OTOHR TORAH INCone grant, 2021 · $11k · revenue +8%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
7 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. 7 of the 11 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 PEF ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds Torah Center For Higher Rabbinical Studies Inc ↗
- Who funds ISRAEL FOOD DISTRIBUTION INC CO MR AVI SCHOEMANN ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVA TIFERET ↗
- Who funds OHR TORAH INC ↗
- Who funds KOLLEL TORAH INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF BE'ER HATORAHINC ↗
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 · Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · The Jimmy and Berta Khezrie Charitable Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Torah Community Fund 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 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 Torah Community Fund Inc?
Find your warmest path to Torah Community Fund 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.