Québec, QC · Public foundation
Fondation Patro / Patro Foundation
Soutenir financièrement des patros implantés au québec et en ontario et toute oeuvre similaire.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k2 grants · C$17k
- C$10k–50k3 grants · C$46k
- C$50k–250k1 grant · C$146k
- C$250k+2 grants · C$957k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PATRO D'OTTAWA | C$666,813 |
| LE PATRO ROC-AMADOUR (1978) INC. | C$290,002 |
| PATRO LAVAL INC. | C$145,520 |
| LE PATRO DE JONQUIÈRE INC. | C$17,677 |
| PATRO DE CHARLESBOURG INC. | C$16,336 |
| LE PATRO DE LÉVIS INC. | C$12,336 |
| LE PATRO VILLERAY | C$8,966 |
| PATRO LE PIVOT | C$8,336 |
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.
7 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$8k 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
- LPLe Patro Roc Amadour (1978) Inc.8× · 2017–2024 · C$1.6M · revenue +40%
- PLPATRO LAVAL INC.7× · 2017–2024 · C$737k · revenue +49%
- PDPATRO DE CHARLESBOURG INC.8× · 2017–2024 · C$664k · revenue +34%
Funded once
- LPLe Patro de Jonquière Inc.one grant, 2018 · C$22k
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.
Accueil de jeunes pour des activités et plein-air en toutes saisons incluant l'hébergement et l'animation en favorisant l'accueil aux plus démunis de la société.
Programmes visant la réinsertion dans la communauté de toute personne ayant un problème de santé mentale sur les plans du travail des études ou de toutes autres activités significatives.
Favoriser la pratique de plein-air organiser des activités de plein-air accès gratuit aux écoles primaires et prêts de raquettes gratuitement accès gratuit 7 jours/semaine de décembre à mars ( ski + raquettes) acceuil du programme ski-cool…
Aider le patro d’ottawa dans le fonctionnement des activités communautaires de la basse ville d’ottawa
Offrir des logements et un environnement de vie de proximité au gens de la municipalité
Offrir un milieu de vie normalisant qui favorise le développement des habiletés et des compétences à la vie en logements supervisés.
Groupe d'integration par action : brise l'isolement activites de quilles de cuisine devoppement des habiletes sociales et manuelles parainnage civique activies a vos pinceaux : fait appel a la creativite la sensibilite l'expres sivite et…
Service de prêt de jeu
Promouvoir les loisirs sans auprès des jeunes et de les amener à découvrir et développer leurs talents.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Le Patro De Jonquiere Inc. and the most unlike its peers is Patro Laval Inc.. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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. 8 of the 9 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: Les religieux de Saint-Vincent de Paul (Canada) · President's Choice Children's Charity-La Fondation Pour Les la Fondation Pour Les Enfants le Choix Du Président · Fondation Québec Philanthrope · Centraide Québec Chaudière-Appalaches et Bas-Saint laurent · Fondation Saison Nouvelle · Fondation Du Club de Hockey Canadien Pour L'Enfance / the Montreal Canadiens Children's Foundation · United Way of Greater Toronto · 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.