Calgary, AB · Public foundation
GH Charitable Foundation
The charity supports a variety of causes aligning with the social responsibility that its generous donors are committed to.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k5 grants · C$12k
- C$10k–50k1 grant · C$10k
- C$50k–250k1 grant · C$50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SOUTHWEST FACILITY FOUNDATION | C$50,000 |
| DOUGLAS FOUNDATION | C$10,000 |
| TEAM RUBICON CANADA | C$5,000 |
| ST. GEORGE'S COLLEGE FOUNDATION | C$5,000 |
| RISE ASSET DEVELOPMENT | C$1,000 |
| CANADA CYCLES FOR KIDS | C$500 |
| CRYSTAL RIDGE COMMUNITY CHURCH | C$100 |
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 +44% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 4 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, 28% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$52k 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
- DFDOUGLAS FOUNDATION2× · 2023–2024 · C$20k · revenue +44%
- TRTEAM RUBICON CANADA2× · 2023–2024 · C$15k · revenue +27%
- SGST. GEORGE'S COLLEGE FOUNDATION2× · 2023–2024 · C$10k · revenue +64%
Funded once
- OPOPERATION PERE NOELone grant, 2023 · C$1k · revenue 0%
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.
Raising funds to support the activities of trans canada trail.
Receiving donations and donating gift cards and cash for parents dealing with children's cancer.
Raise funds to provide research grants of benefit to the canadian honey bee industry
The foundation was formed to alleviate financial barriers to participating in physical activity for children in need and raises funding for this program.
The Paralympic Foundation of Canada's (the 'Foundation') mission is together deliver the best prepared teams for games excellence while promoting inclusive communities through the power of sport and its ambition is to raise $35 Million by…
Fundraising to support sarcoma cancer research patient support and education raising awareness of sarcoma cancer
The foundation was established to support and increase charitable giving in canada.
Dons reçus de canada helps
Raising endowment finds to invest and to provide community grants to organizations within the district for the benefit of the community as a whole/
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Canada Cycles for Kids and the most unlike its peers is Crystal Ridge Community Church (Brethren in Christ). 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.
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: 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.