Toronto, ON · Public foundation
Lithuanian Canadian Foundation
Accumulation of capital to provide income to support cultural and educational programmes
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k5 grants · C$33k
- C$10k–50k8 grants · C$135k
- C$50k–250k2 grants · C$214k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LITHUANIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY FUND FOR CULTURE | C$126,525 |
| Individual grant recipient | C$87,301 |
| CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION | C$25,600 |
| Individual grant recipient | C$18,950 |
| VOLUNGE LITHANINAN CHORAL ENSEMBLE | C$18,275 |
| ROMUVA INC | C$17,000 |
| ANAPILIS CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE | C$17,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | C$15,725 |
| SOCIETY OF FRANCISCAN FATHERS OF ONTARIO | C$12,000 |
| VDU | C$10,600 |
| Individual grant recipient | C$9,350 |
| LITHUANIAN MARTYRS PARISH | C$8,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | C$7,700 |
| LABDARA FOUNDATION | C$5,800 |
| MONTREAL AUSROS VARTU PARISH | C$2,225 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Where your grant dollars land — at home and around the world.
Your giving at home — 87% of grant dollars (C$1.2M). The 13% that went abroad (C$186k) is mapped below.
Beyond home — 13% of all-years giving (C$186k)
0 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same T3010 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
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.
10 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 6 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, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$136k 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
- LCLITHUANIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY FUND FOR CULTURE8× · 2017–2024 · C$670k · revenue +428% · 73% of their budget
- COCHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION8× · 2017–2024 · C$186k · revenue ×220
- CKCAMP KRETINGA8× · 2017–2024 · C$89k · revenue +66%
Funded once
- COCHURCH OF THE RESURRECTIONone grant, 2020 · C$20k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · C$15k
- KKLJSone grant, 2023 · C$8k
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.
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine
Exercice de la religion catholique Romaine
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine
Église de la religion catholique romaine
Eglise catholique lieu de culte
Worship of the holy father under the ukrainian catholic faith
Culte religion catholique romaine
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto in Canada and the most unlike its peers is Romuva Incorporated. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 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.
- Who funds LITHUANIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY FUND FOR CULTURE ↗
- Who funds CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION ↗
- Who funds ROMUVA INC ↗
- Who funds CAMP KRETINGA ↗
- Who funds VOLUNGE LITHANINAN CHORAL ENSEMBLE ↗
- Who funds ANAPILIS CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE ↗
- Who funds LABDARA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OUR LADY OF MERCY PARISH ↗
- Who funds THE FABRIQUE OF THE PARISH OF SAINT CASIMIR ARCHIDIOCESE DE ↗
- Who funds AROISSE NOTRE-DAME-PORTE-DE-L'AURORE ↗
- Who funds St Casimir Parish Delhi ↗
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.