· Private foundation
Vahavta Lereacha Kamocha Ltd
To benefit individuals in the jewish community by collecting and distributing food and other necessary items; to secure and provide volunteers to offer aid and assistance to the poor, homeless and the needy through the collection and dissemination of food, clothing and other items; to encourage interest, awareness and activism in local…
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2020.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2020
- Under $10k2 grants · $3k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $98k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL GRANT RECIPIENTS | $54,430 |
| Individual grant recipient | $18,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $16,260 |
| LIKRAS SHABBOS INC | $12,500 |
| VARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS | $10,750 |
| BNOS ESTHER MALKAH INC | $10,000 |
| YESHIVA GEDOLA OF PASSAIC | $10,000 |
| SHULAMITH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS OF BROOKLYN | $10,000 |
| AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER INC | $10,000 |
| CHICAGO COMMUNITY KOLLEL | $2,000 |
| YISHIVAS ABIREY LEV | $1,000 |
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 (FY17–20, $35k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 71% 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 +74% since the first grant, against -20% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2020, 7 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (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 FY2020, 6% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $145k 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
- KNKEREN NER MATISYAHU INC2× · 2017–2018 · $276k
- CBCONG BAIS MEDRASH TEHILLAS SHLOMO2× · 2017–2018 · $160k
- CBCONGREGATION BAIS HACHINUCH INC2× · 2017–2018 · $80k
Funded once
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF RABBINICAL COLLEGE NETIV HADAAT INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $200k · revenue +78%
- CZCONGREGATION ZICHRON MOSHE INCone grant, 2017 · $110k
- MAMesivta Ahavas Hatorahgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue +45%
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.
Support of religious schools in Israel
Religious Teaching
Education services
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.
Ohr Yisrael is a religious institution that provides religious services and instruction to Rabbis and community members.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Friends of Rabbinical College Netiv Hadaat Inc and the most unlike its peers is Ztm Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
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 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 7% 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.
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 34 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 KEREN NER MATISYAHU INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF RABBINICAL COLLEGE NETIV HADAAT INC ↗
- Who funds Mesivta Ahavas Hatorah ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF ZICHRON YOSEF R ↗
- Who funds ZTM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YESHIVAS BIRCAS HATORAH INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVAS NER DOVID INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER ↗
- Who funds YESHIVA IMREI BINA INC ↗
- Who funds KEREN ESTHER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Likras Shabbos Inc ↗
- Who funds TALMUDIC RESEARCH CENTER OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY ↗
- Who funds BNOS ESTHER MALKA INC ↗
- Who funds SHULAMITH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS OF BROOKLYN ↗
- Who funds AAK INTERNATIONAL RELIEF INC ↗
- Who funds YESHIVAS ABIREY LEV ↗
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: Jewish Communal Fund · The Ojc Fund · Grant Recommendation Fund · Toras Chesed Inc · Donors Fund Inc · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · Fund for Life Foundation Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Vahavta Lereacha Kamocha Ltd 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 Esther Malka Inc — 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 Vahavta Lereacha Kamocha Ltd?
Find your warmest path to Vahavta Lereacha Kamocha Ltd 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.