Surrey, BC · Private foundation
James B. Wallace Foundation
Disbursement of funds to qualified donees
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WOUNDED WARRIORS CANADA | C$15,000 |
| SOURCES COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOUNDATION | C$15,000 |
| COVENANT HOUSE | C$15,000 |
| PEACH ARCH HOSPITAL FOUNDATION | C$15,000 |
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 +126% since the first grant, against +20% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 1 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, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$15k 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
- CHCovenant House8× · 2017–2024 · C$125k · revenue +81%
- PAPEACH ARCH HOSPITAL FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · C$120k · revenue +59%
- SCSOURCES COMMUNITY RESOURCES FOUNDATION8× · 2017–2024 · C$97k · revenue +201%
Funded once
- TSTHE SEMIAHMOO FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · C$20k · revenue +20%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent CRA filings.
6 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 British Columbia · CHIMP: Charitable Impact Foundation (Canada) · PayPal Giving Fund Canada · 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.