Winnipeg, MB · Charitable organization
Lilyfield United Church
LILYFIELD UNITED CHURCH continues to share services with stony mountain u church.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA | C$1,502 |
| STONEWALL CHRISTMAS CHEER BOARD | C$500 |
| INTERLAKE FOOD BANK | C$400 |
| I JUST CITY | C$400 |
| SOUTH WEST DISTRICT PALLIATIVE CARE | C$300 |
| MB INTERFAITH IMMIGRATION COUNCIL | C$200 |
| CENTRE FOR CHRISTIAN STUDIES | C$200 |
| MB ONTARIO NORTHWESTERN CONFERENCE | 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.
12 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 5 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, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$100 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
- SDSTONEWALL & DISTRICT CHRISTMAS CHEER7× · 2018–2024 · C$3k · revenue +97%
- SWSOUTH WEST DISTRICT PALLIATIVE CARE8× · 2017–2024 · C$2k · revenue +151%
- 1J1 JUST CITY7× · 2018–2024 · C$2k · revenue +330%
Funded once
- UCUNITED CHURCH OF CANADA MISION AND SERVICESone grant, 2021 · C$1k
- IFINTERLAKE FOOD BANK B0X 713one grant, 2019 · C$200
- MIMANITOBA INTERFAITH IMMIGRATION COUNCILone grant, 2020 · C$200
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. 6 of the 23 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: The Winnipeg Foundation · CHIMP: Charitable Impact Foundation (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.