Sudbury, ON · Charitable organization
Ukrainian Centre of Sudbury
Drop in centre with organized activities as well as meeting place visits to the sick and shut in.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SUDBURY MULTICULTURAL & FOLK ARTS ASSOC | C$800 |
| SUDBURY FOOD BANK | C$500 |
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 +245% since the first grant, against +2% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 2 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
- CUCANADA UKRAINE FOUNDATION2× · 2017–2022 · C$105k · revenue ×11
- SMSudbury Multicultural Folk Arts Association4× · 2017–2024 · C$2k · revenue +245%
- SFSUDBURY FOOD BANK3× · 2017–2024 · C$650 · revenue +101%
Funded once
- NNASHIone grant, 2023 · C$50k · revenue -18%
- LELions Eye in the Skyone grant, 2017 · C$4k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · C$2k
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.
Drop in centre with organized activities as well as meeting place visits to the sick and shut in. continuum-of-care provider private weekly balanced meals at nominal costs provide reading materials and other appropriate forms of…
The program consists of aiding girls who are pregnant and in distress emotionally physically and financially.
Building endowment funds by helping donors reach philanthropic goals making grants to qualified donees community leadership including indentifying gaps in services unrealized opportunities and critical need by undertaking initiatives that…
Provide economic and social assistance to native families within the sudbury area by providing affordable housing.
Awareness raising (via website + social media)
Provide funding to other organizations whose main goal is to provide services to underprivileged children and youth as needed.
We provide the basic necessities of life (food water shelter clothing and medical needs) for impoverished families in Ukraine. These numbers have risen dramatically since the Russian invasion February 2022. Twelve well-connected volunteers…
Sudbury community service centre provides support and advocacy to over 400 adults and their families diagnosed as developentally disabled enabling them to integrate into the community to the fullest extent possible. the credit counselling…
Provide counselling and housing for women and men recovering from alcohol and/or drug addiction n the sudbury region.
To relieve poverty in developing nations by providing food and other basic supplies to people in need. To develop and promote public health in developing nations by educating and instructing the public on prevention of and curative…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Banque D'aliments Sudbury Food Bank and the most unlike its peers is Nashi. 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 19 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.
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: 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.