Richmond, BC · Private foundation
Charity Science Foundation of Canada
We conduct research to identify neglected and highly cost-effective charitable interventions and support others to form their own charities in these areas.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Priority Foundation | C$86,872 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Where your grant dollars land — at home and around the world.
Your giving at home — 87% of grant dollars (C$1.8M). The 13% that went abroad (C$257k) is mapped below.
Beyond home — 13% of all-years giving (C$257k)
0 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same T3010 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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.
3 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2021, 2 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 FY2021, 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
- CCCHIMP: Charitable Impact Fund (Canada)3× · 2018–2020 · C$1.3M · revenue +36%
- AMAgainst Malaria Foundation2× · 2017–2018 · C$366k · revenue +717% · 33% of their budget
- PFPriority Foundation2× · 2020–2021 · C$92k · revenue -55%
Funded once
- ICImperial College of London, Technology and Medicineone grant, 2017 · C$211k
- ICImperial College of Science, Technology and Medicineone grant, 2018 · C$47k
- RCRethink Charity Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2020 · C$4k · revenue +489%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent CRA filings.
5 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. 5 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: CHIMP: Charitable Impact Foundation (Canada)
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.