Skip to content
Philip H and Christine Lodewick Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Philip H and Christine Lodewick Foundation Inc

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$17k
Granted FY2022
1
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$17k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Education$21kReligion$20kHealth$7kYouth Development$6kHuman Services$6kArts & Culture$5kFood & Nutrition$1kEnvironment$500Other$0
02FY2022 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$17,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ST ANDREW'S LUTHERAN CHURCH$17,000
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.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–18, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%ASSOCIATION OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITES: $2k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$54k · 8 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2022, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
10

Total granted

$54k
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+86%
+87%

Still filing today

50%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’22
Arts & CultureHuman ServicesEducationYouth DevelopmentEnvironmentOther
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

  • RI
    RVNAHEALTH INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $7k · revenue +197%
  • AB
    A Better Chance in Ridgefield Inc
    2× · 2017–2018 · $4k · revenue +63%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF RIDGEFIELD
    2× · 2018–2019 · $2k · revenue +86%

Funded once

  • LH
    LOUNSBURY HOUSE
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
  • CW
    CONNECTICUT WOMENS HALL OF FAME INC
    one grant, 2018 · $3k · revenue -51%
  • AO
    Association of Religious Communities Incgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $2k · revenue +308%
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

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Land Conservancy of Ridgefield Inc

The Land Conservancy of Ridgefield, Inc. ("the Land Conservancy"), founded in 1967, preserves and protects, for the general benefit of the public, Ridgefield, Connecticut's natural resources including land and water resources, the plant…

Environment
2
Ridgefield Conservatory of Dance Inc

The ridgefield conservatory of dance is dedicated to the use of a well-structured syllabus for all dance techniques. an age appropriate syllabus that takes into consideration both physical and mental development ensures the best and safest…

—
3
Ridgefield Chamber of Commerce

The mission of ridgefield chamber of commerce is to promote the economic vitality of the town of ridgefield ct through member engagement, hospitality.

—
4
Ridgefield Operation for Animal Rescue Inc

To provide shelter and placement of homeless dogs and cats.

Animals
5
Ridgefield Main Street

Ridgefield Main Street is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the cultural heritage of downtown Ridgefield, while advocating advocating for its future through economic development, community events, public and private…

Unclassified
6
Friends of Ridgefield Community Programs Inc

Support civic activities in the town of ridgefield, ct

Community Improvement
7
Ridgefield Community Kindergarten Inc

To provide preschool education for children ages 2-5.

—
8
Ridgefield Fresh Air Association
—
9
Ridgefield Library Association Inc

Ridgefield library is a public library, incorporated in 1901 as a private 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and governed by a sixteen member board of directors. the library serves as a cultural and intellectual center and a community…

Education
10
Richfield Community Center
—
11
Ridgewater College Foundation

To expand educational opportunities and enhance academic excellence at ridgewater college by providing financial and community support. the foundation accomplishes its mission through its annual and capital fundraising campaigns, which…

Education
12
Norwalk River Watershed Association Inc

To protect water quality and wildlife habitat in the seven-town Norwalk River Watershed

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rvnahealth Inc; the most unlike its peers is Association of Religious Communities Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 18 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
9/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST ANDREW'S LUTHERAN CHURCH: $20,200 · OtherST ANDREW'S LUTHERAN CHURCHUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON: $10,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISONRIDGEFIELD LIBRARY: $9,000 · OtherRIDGEFIELD LIBRARYRVNAHEALTH INC: $7,100 · OtherRVNAHEALTH INCA Better Chance in Ridgefield Inc: $4,275 · OtherA Better Chance in Ridgefield IncLOUNSBURY HOUSE: $2,500 · Other+4 more: $3,250 · Other+4 moreCONNECTICUT WOMENS HALL OF FAME INC: $2,500 · Arts & CultureThe Ridgefield Symphony Orchestra Inc: $550 · Arts & CultureRIDGEFIELD HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $250 · Arts & CultureRIDGEFIELD GUILD OF ARTISTS: $250 · Arts & CultureAssociation of Religious Communities Inc: $2,000 · Human ServicesUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $1,500 · EducationBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF RIDGEFIELD: $1,500 · Youth DevelopmentWOODCOCK NATURE CENTER INC: $500 · Environment
Other$56,325Arts & Culture$3,550Human Services$2,000Education$1,500Youth Development$1,500Environment$500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRVNAHEALTH INC: $7,100 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetA Better Chance in Ridgefield Inc: $4,275 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetCONNECTICUT WOMENS HALL OF FAME INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetAssociation of Religious Communities Inc: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF RIDGEFIELD: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMEALS-ON-WHEELS INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWOODCOCK NATURE CENTER INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRIDGEFIELD HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $250 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetRIDGEFIELD GUILD OF ARTISTS: $250 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

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.

Anne S Richardson Fun…Synchrony FoundationPf & Rj Morganti Foun…Taylor-Zemo Foundatio…Ridgefield Thrift Sho…The Goldstone Family …Union Savings Bank Fo…The Barker Welfare Fo…Connecticut Humanitie…Fairfield County's Co…The Ayco Charitable F…Ge Aerospace Foundati…
Anne S Richardson Fund Xxxxx3004IL20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Anne S Richardson Fund Xxxxx3004 · Synchrony Foundation · Pf & Rj Morganti Foundation · Taylor-Zemo Foundation Inc · Ridgefield Thrift Shop Inc · The Goldstone Family Foundation · Union Savings Bank Foundation Inc · The Barker Welfare Foundation · Connecticut Humanities Council Inc · Fairfield County's Community Foundation Inc · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · Ge Aerospace 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 Philip H and Christine Lodewick Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Philip H and Christine Lodewick Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 6%
  • Ridgefield Historical Society Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Association of Religious Communities Inc: 6% of income from government
  • The Ridgefield Symphony Orchestra Inc: 2% of income from government
  • Rvnahealth Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Philip H and Christine Lodewick Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Philip H and Christine Lodewick Foundation Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 18 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Philip H and Christine Lodewick’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home