Winnipeg, MB · Charitable organization
Prairie Spirit United Church
Sunday worship sunday school baptisms weddings funerals communion outreach bible study united church women missions giving
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under C$10k5 grants · C$4k
- C$10k–50k1 grant · C$26k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MISSION AND SERVICES PROVIDER | C$26,083 |
| 1 JUST CITY INC. | C$1,913 |
| HARVEST MANITOBA | C$540 |
| WINNIPEG HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC | C$491 |
| AGAPE TABLE | C$320 |
| CHRISTMAS CHEER BOARD | C$288 |
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 +69% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 4 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
- MAMission and Services Provider8× · 2017–2024 · C$238k · revenue +22%
- 1J1 JUST CITY INC4× · 2018–2021 · C$13k · revenue +330%
- HMHARVEST MANITOBA INC7× · 2018–2024 · C$12k · revenue +208%
Funded once
- SCSTURGEON CREEK UNITED CHURCH FOUNDATIONone grant, 2021 · C$8k · revenue -99% · 96% of their budget
- SBST. BASIL'S UKRANIAN CATHOLIC PARISHone grant, 2022 · C$2k · revenue +14%
- OTOAK TABLEgraduatedone grant, 2019 · C$1k · revenue +137%
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.
Prepares and gives out food packages to homeless people in toronto
To provide free furniture and basic needs to those in need in winnipeg
Food for the Hungry (FH) Canada part of the global FH family is a Christian not-for-profit organization dedicated to ending poverty worldwide. With partners across Canada and the world FH walks alongside vulnerable communities throughout…
Food and clothing banks soup kitchens helping the homeless
To bring together all sectors of our community to work with people who are experiencing homelessness so that together we can prevent homelessness support recovery and wellbeing find suitable housing and measure our success in ways that…
To work with people in manitoba to increase opportunities for people to eat good food
Supporting food banks and community pantry and supporting other charitable organizations such as shelters and recovery centers
Food bank and soup kitchen
Charity didn't have any programs due to lack of funding
1. provide social service programs and services to citizens; 2. support and fund the creation growth and maintenance of community economic development activities that address the root cause of issues; 3. support and fund the creation…
Distributing food hampers to single persons and families in need.
Food bank meals to homeless and the intercity soup kitchen emergency hamper program.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Harvest Manitoba Inc. and the most unlike its peers is North End Community Ministry. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 14 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 Mission and Services Provider ↗
- Who funds 1 JUST CITY INC ↗
- Who funds HARVEST MANITOBA INC ↗
- Who funds STURGEON CREEK UNITED CHURCH FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Canadian Foodgrains Bank ↗
- Who funds Christmas Cheer Board ↗
- Who funds ST. BASIL'S UKRANIAN CATHOLIC PARISH ↗
- Who funds AGAPE TABLE ↗
- Who funds OAK TABLE ↗
- Who funds Siloam Mission ↗
- Who funds WINNIPEG HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC ↗
- Who funds Northend Stella Mission Community Ministry ↗
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: Charleswood United Church · Giftpact Foundation Inc. · The Winnipeg Foundation · All Charities Campaign · Abundance Canada · Charitable Gift Funds Canada Foundation / Fonds de Bienfaisance Canada · PayPal Giving Fund 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.