Winnipeg, MB · Charitable organization
Plast Ukrainian Youth Association of Manitoba
1.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PLAST UKRAINIAN YOUTH ASSOCIATION OF CANADA | C$3,755 |
| THE UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF MANITOBA | C$1,000 |
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 +280% since the first grant, against +31% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 2 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 FY2024, 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
- PUPLAST UKRAINIAN YOUTH ASSOCIATION OF CANADA4× · 2020–2024 · C$37k · revenue +57%
- CUCANADA UKRAINE FOUNDATION2× · 2019–2022 · C$10k · revenue +297%
- AUAID UKRAINE4× · 2017–2020 · C$915 · revenue +280%
Funded once
- UCUKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWANone grant, 2022 · C$1k · revenue +0%
- IHIMMACULATE HEART OF MARY SCHOOL INCgraduatedone grant, 2022 · C$100 · revenue +31%
- CCChristmas Cheerboard (Winnipeg)graduatedone grant, 2017 · C$52 · revenue +69%
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.
Operates annual festival promoting art and culture of ukrainian people
To promote charitable welfare cultural and educational activity among ukrainian canadians.
The charity operates and maintains a museum of ukrainian cultural artifacts historical books and clothing.
Promoting ukrainian education in canada. the foundation adminsters various funds which promote scholarly studies publications and conferences through grants fellowships and awards
Ukrainian catholic religious organization
Provide scholarships to students for post secondary education and operate the canada ukraine parliamentary program
The mandate of the museum is to preserves the history of the ukrainian people within a multicultural society. through exhibits educational programs and interactive activties the museum brings to life the story of a significant group of…
Promote spiritual academic cultural and moral leadership with the ukrainian orthodox church of canada and the ukrainian canadian and canadian communities.
Undertake and support educational research projects and publications relating to Ukrainian and Ukrainian Canadian historical themes.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Canada-Ukraine Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Immaculate Heart of Mary School 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.
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 PLAST UKRAINIAN YOUTH ASSOCIATION OF CANADA ↗
- Who funds CANADA UKRAINE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF MANITOBA ↗
- Who funds UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN ↗
- Who funds AID UKRAINE (HUHTC) ↗
- Who funds IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds Christmas Cheerboard (Winnipeg) ↗
- Who funds CANADIAN MUSEUM OF HUMAN RIGHTS ↗
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: BenefAction Foundation · United Way East Ontario / Centraide Est de L'Ontario · 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.