Moose Jaw, SK · Charitable organization
Church of Christ
Weekly worship services and bible classes.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SAMARITANS PURSE | C$792 |
| CLEARVIEW CHRISTIAN CAMP | C$500 |
| MOOSE JAW SQUARE ONE | C$250 |
| MOOSE JAW FOOD BANK | C$250 |
| HUNGER IN MOOSE JAW | C$250 |
| SALVATION ARMY | C$250 |
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.
5 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 2 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, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$1k 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
- CCCLEARVIEW CHRISTIAN CAMP5× · 2017–2024 · C$4k · revenue ×14
- TNTrue North Helping Hands2× · 2017–2021 · C$1k · revenue -51%
- HIHUNGER IN MOOSE JAW2× · 2021–2024 · C$750 · revenue +34%
Funded once
- ECESTEVAN CHURCH OF CHRISTone grant, 2021 · C$500
- RMRIVERSIDE MISSIONone grant, 2021 · C$500 · revenue -15%
- GRGENTEL ROADS CHURCH OF CHRISTone grant, 2021 · C$500 · revenue +12%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent CRA 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 matches that aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Moose jaw non-profit housing corporation was created to provide housing solutions to the residents of the city of moose jaw who do not have the financial means to pay for housing at the market rate. to that end it has grown to 5 separate…
1. Provide drug free Christian faith-based homes (in 6 houses and a 50 person facility) for adult men who are seeking to live a clean drug free life. 2. Provide food and shelter to homeless men on income assistance and employment…
To provide ssocks to the homeless through the shelter systems in canada.
Relief of Poverty. Providing food to food banks and other non-profit groups. Farming being done and in progress of further preparation of the farm for use.
Since 2016 Soso World Ministries has been building a Mobile Food Distribution Program primarily among Toronto Community Housing Residence within Scarborough. We used our weekly and in many cases exclusive corporate donations from: Cobbs…
Takes unmarketable vegetables dices dehydrates and packages them for vegetable mixes. these mixes get distributed to feed hungry people.
Operation of residential group home
The main efforts include rejuvenation construction projects at numerous river park location within the city of moose jaw
Operation of community drop in centre providing food clothing and shelter to people struggling with food and housing insecurity. provision of live-in addictions recovery programming. provision of training opportunities for people with…
Continuous encouragement to citizens to assist in the reduction of crime in the community and surrounding area through Crime Stoppers
Relieving poverty in Canada by providing the necessities of life including facilitating the delivery of food clothing and other supplies to those in need.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Souls Harbour Rescue Mission Inc. and the most unlike its peers is Clearview Christian Camp. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 10 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: PayPal Giving Fund Canada · 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.