Dartmouth, NS · Private foundation
Alfred Smithers Charitable Foundation
Ongoing programs involve making donations to qualifying charitable organizations that provide education to youth as well as those involved in healthcare
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Dartmouth General Hospital Foundation | C$177,500 |
| QE II Health Sciences Centre Foundation | C$50,000 |
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 +45% since the first grant, against -6% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2023, 1 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 FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$0 went to new ones.
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.”
Backed again, and grew
- DGDartmouth General Hospital Foundation5× · 2017–2023 · C$721k · revenue +246%
- QHQEII Health Sciences Centre Foundation3× · 2020–2023 · C$150k · revenue +45%
- LALunenburg Academy Foundation3× · 2019–2021 · C$50k · revenue -57%
Funded once
- QFQWII Foundationone grant, 2022 · C$50k
- HHHospice Halifaxone grant, 2021 · C$25k · revenue -6%
- OHOur Health Centreone grant, 2017 · C$15k · revenue -59%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent CRA filings.
6 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own CRA 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 2017–2024, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 6 of the 7 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.
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.
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: River Philip Foundation · United Way Maritimes/Centraide des Maritimes · BenefAction Foundation · Charitable Gift Funds Canada Foundation / Fonds de Bienfaisance Canada · My Tribute Gift Foundation · United Way of Greater Toronto · Canadian Online Giving Foundation/Fondation canadienne de dons en ligne · Canadahelps Canadon
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.