Onanole, MB · Public foundation
Onanole Foundation Inc.
Participation in day of giving.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ONANOLE AND DISTRICT RECREATION CORPORATION | C$3,000 |
| MUNICIPALITY OF CLANWILLIAM - ERICKSON (ERICKSON RECREATION | C$2,000 |
| THE WASAGAMING FOUNDATION (CLEAR LAKE SERVICE COOPERATIVE) | C$1,800 |
| LITTLE HANDS EARLY LEARNING CENTRE | C$1,200 |
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 +94% since the first grant, against +69% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 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, 53% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; C$4k 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
- TOTHE ONANOLE & DISTRICT R.E.C. CENTRE3× · 2020–2024 · C$14k · revenue +184%
- LHLITTLE HANDS EARLY LEARNING CENTRE3× · 2022–2024 · C$3k · revenue +12%
- EAErickson and Area Palliative Care Committee3× · 2017–2022 · C$1k · revenue +94%
Funded once
- MOMunicipality of Harrison Parkone grant, 2017 · C$2k
- BCBRANDON-WESTMAN CHRISTMAS CHEER REGISTRY INC.graduatedone grant, 2022 · C$1k · revenue +69%
- WFWASAGAMING FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · C$1k
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.
Food bank-provide food hampers to clients in need.
Operation of a library within the town of edson
Assist with purchase of necessary equipment for our health care facilities in ponoka and area
Elkhorn early learning center provides day care in lud of elkhorn and surrounding area.
Mission: to meet evolving local health care needs by partnering with community stakeholders.
Operates local arena and recreational facilities
Donations are accepted and discussions are ongoing with the local hospital to determine what their needs are and where our organization can help fund equipment as required. during the year the organization supported hospital activities in…
Fundraising to benefit health & wellness in the eston and area community.
Purpose is to raise and manage funds to purchase equipment to enhance health care programs which don't have funds available from government sources for the benefit of the drumheller district health services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Erickson and Area Foodbank Inc. and the most unlike its peers is Brandon-Westman Christmas Cheer Registry Inc.. 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. 8 of the 12 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 ERICKSON & AREA FOOD BANK INC. ↗
- Who funds THE ONANOLE & DISTRICT R.E.C. CENTRE ↗
- Who funds LITTLE HANDS EARLY LEARNING CENTRE ↗
- Who funds THE WASAGAMING FOUNDATION (CLEAR LAKE SERVICE COOPERATIVE) ↗
- Who funds Erickson and Area Palliative Care Committee ↗
- Who funds BRANDON-WESTMAN CHRISTMAS CHEER REGISTRY INC. ↗
- Who funds BEAUTIFUL PLAINS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Service to Seniors ↗
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: 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.