Clover Dale, BC · Charitable organization
Don Wallis Ministries Inc.
Don wallis ministries supports churches in kazakhstan cuba israel russia usa
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k1 grant · C$1k
- C$10k–50k1 grant · C$25k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GLAD TIDINGS MISSIONARY SOCIETY | C$24,500 |
| CANADIAN BIBLE SOCIETY | C$1,000 |
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 +11% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 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, 96% 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
- GTGLAD TIDINGS MISSIONARY SOCIETY4× · 2021–2024 · C$231k · revenue -24%
- CCCOSTAL CHURCH2× · 2020–2021 · C$200k · revenue +50%
- ICINTERVARSITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP OF CANADA2× · 2018–2019 · C$2k · revenue +11%
Funded once
- MCMIRACLE CHANNELone grant, 2021 · C$453k · revenue +8%
- EEMBLAZEone grant, 2020 · C$10k · revenue -5%
- PAPACIFIC ACADEMY OUTREACH SOCIETYone grant, 2018 · C$200 · revenue -54%
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.
(1) oversea and local missionaries (2) bible study (3) pastoral counselling and preaching
Missionary trainings On-line and On-site mission trips Church planting trainings
Training qualified leaders from around world to effectively evangelize other national christians.
Internet bible theology college internet ministry tv and radio ministry mens leadership ministry and missions.
Preaching the gospel through broadcasting TV programs Printed publications Emergency Relief Media evangelism Campaigns
To encourage teach and disciple the christian church around the world.
Ministry crusades throughout the world. radio broadcasts and publications. to share the gospel message by church meetings radio broadcasts books and publications.
Church services programs television ministry (living truth) and global missions
Revive nations is a ministry with a passion to raise jesus lovers across the world and on a mission to win souls for jesus touching nations one life at a time.
Teaching discipleship training evangelism small group studies and care administration sermon christians in the basic teachings of the bible.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Glad Tidings Missionary Society and the most unlike its peers is Langley Food Bank Society. 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.
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 MIRACLE CHANNEL ↗
- Who funds GLAD TIDINGS MISSIONARY SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds COSTAL CHURCH ↗
- Who funds EMBLAZE ↗
- Who funds INTERVARSITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP OF CANADA ↗
- Who funds CANADIAN BIBLE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds CITY AXIS LEADERSHIP ↗
- Who funds PACIFIC ACADEMY OUTREACH SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds LANGLEY FOOD BANK SOCIETY ↗
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: CHIMP: Charitable Impact Foundation (Canada) · 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.