Greenfield Park, QC · Charitable organization
Mecum Communauté Chrétienne
La communité mecum offrait de l'accompagnement spirituel individuel, des rencontres hebdomadaires pour formation chrétiene, des retraites d'un jour ou prolongées, de la pastorale auprès des malades ou personnes agées.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LES OEUVRES DE CHARITÉ DE L'ARCHEVÊQUE CATHOLIQUE ET ROMAIN | C$180,000 |
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 +25% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2019, 6 since wound down.
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 FY2019, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$0 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
- LOLES OEUVRES DE CHARITÉ DE L'ARCHEVÊQUE CATHOLIQUE ET ROMAIN2× · 2017–2019 · C$181k · revenue +36%
- ODOEUVRE DES VOCATIONS2× · 2017–2018 · C$31k · revenue +72%
- SOSOCIETY OF LITTLE FLOWER2× · 2017–2018 · C$300 · revenue +25%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · C$20k
- PSParoisse St-Jean-de-Mathaone grant, 2017 · C$1k · revenue -48%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · C$760
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
Promotion de la religion catholique romaine
Église catholique romaine
Culte de la religion catholique
Église catholique romaine
Assurer le culte catholique romain sur le territoire déterminé par l'évêque de gaspé
Promouvoir l'avancement de la religion catholique romaine. administrer les biens servant au culte et ppouvoir à l'ensevelissement des défunts.
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine et a comme activités principales le culte et la pastorale
Église de la religion catholique romaine et soutient à la communauté
Exercice de la religion catholique romaine.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Corporation Archiepiscopale Catholique Romaine De Montreal and the most unlike its peers is Institut Marie-Guyart. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 29 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 LES OEUVRES DE CHARITÉ DE L'ARCHEVÊQUE CATHOLIQUE ET ROMAIN ↗
- Who funds OEUVRE DES VOCATIONS ↗
- Who funds Paroisse St-Jean-de-Matha ↗
- Who funds Croix Rouge Canadienne ↗
- Who funds Télévision Sel et Lumière ↗
- Who funds SOCIETY OF LITTLE FLOWER ↗
- Who funds METANOIA OUTREACH ↗
- Who funds Oeuvre des Franciscains de l'Emmanuel ↗
- Who funds Fondation de l'Arche Canada ↗
- Who funds Pillars 'Trust Fund ↗
- Who funds La Victoire de l'Amour ↗
- Who funds Institut Marie-Guyart ↗
- Who funds Heart and Stroke Foundation ↗
- Who funds Covenant House ↗
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: Oeuvres Regis-Vernet · Charitable Gift Funds Canada Foundation / Fonds de Bienfaisance 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.