Skip to content

· Private foundation

Frances Demrick Charitable

Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$23k
Granted FY2026still arriving
7
Grants FY2026still arriving
1
States reached
$3k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Health$47kYouth Development$32kArts & Culture$16kEducation$16k
02FY2026 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,335
Median grant
1
States reached
$355k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RIDGEFIELD SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA FDN$3,335
ABILITY BEYOND DISABILITY$3,335
A BETTER CHANCE IN RIDGEFIELD$3,335
RIDGEFIELD SCHOLARSHIP GROUP INC$3,335
THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF RIDGEFIELD$3,335
REGIONAL HOSPICE OF WESTERN CT$3,335
RIDGEFIELD VISITING NURSE ASSOC$3,335
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

None of its grants could be placed against low income need for this view.

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$134k · 7 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2026, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
0

Total granted

$134k
$0

Still filing today

71%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
Youth DevelopmentHuman ServicesEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF RIDGEFIELD
    8× · 2019–2026 · $19k · revenue +4%
  • AB
    A Better Chance in Ridgefield Inc
    8× · 2019–2026 · $19k · revenue +85%
  • RH
    REGIONAL HOSPICE AND HOME CARE OF WESTERN CONNECTICUT INC
    8× · 2019–2026 · $19k · revenue +16%

Funded once

    How this is measured

    Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

    04Its field
    04the grantee network

    5 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

    Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

    How this is measured

    Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 5 of the 7 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

    Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    2
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    5/5
    Grantees still filing
    5/5
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    RIDGEFIELD SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA FDN: $19,679 · OtherRIDGEFIELD SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA FDNA Better Chance in Ridgefield Inc: $19,116 · OtherA Better Chance in Ridgefield IncRVNAHEALTH INC: $19,116 · OtherRVNAHEALTH INCABILITY BEYOND DISABILITY: $19,116 · OtherABILITY BEYOND DISABILITYBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF RIDGEFIELD: $19,116 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLU…REGIONAL HOSPICE AND HOME CARE OF WESTERN CONNECTICUT INC: $19,116 · Human ServicesREGIONAL HOSPICE…RIDGEFIELD SCHOLARSHIP GROUP INC: $19,116 · EducationRIDGEFIELD SCHOL…
    Other$77,027Youth Development$19,116Human Services$19,116Education$19,116

    Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF RIDGEFIELD: $19,116 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetA Better Chance in Ridgefield Inc: $19,116 over 8y, 1.1% of budgetREGIONAL HOSPICE AND HOME CARE OF WESTERN CONNECTICUT INC: $19,116 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetRVNAHEALTH INC: $19,116 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetRIDGEFIELD SCHOLARSHIP GROUP INC: $19,116 over 8y, 16% of budget
    Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

    A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

    • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF RIDGEFIELD ↗
    • Who funds A Better Chance in Ridgefield Inc ↗
    • Who funds REGIONAL HOSPICE AND HOME CARE OF WESTERN CONNECTICUT INC ↗
    • Who funds RVNAHEALTH INC ↗
    • Who funds RIDGEFIELD SCHOLARSHIP GROUP INC ↗

    Co-funders

    Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

    Taylor-Zemo Foundation IncCT13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Taylor-Zemo Foundation Inc · Synchrony Foundation · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

    How this is measured
    Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

    How much its grantees rely on government

    Each dot is one organization Frances Demrick Charitable funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Frances Demrick Charitable. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 30%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 17%
    • Regional Hospice and Home Care of Western Connecticut Inc: 17% of income from government
    • Rvnahealth Inc: 2% of income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 7 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Frances Demrick’s filings →

    More from the funding graph