Skip to content
The Bridgehead Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Bridgehead Foundation

ELEVATING ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHARE CHRISTIAN VALUES TOWARDS MORE THOUGHTFUL, STRATEGIC, AND PRODUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF THEIR WORLD.

$446k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$384k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$2.0MPhilanthropy$1.2MInternational$490kHuman Services$84kCommunity Improvement$75kEducation$39kFood & Nutrition$35kHousing & Shelter$35kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $7k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $55k
  • $250k+1 grant · $384k
$20,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$23M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION$383,500
URBAN IMPACT$25,000
CENTERED$20,000
WOODINVILLE STOREHOUSE$10,000
Individual grant recipient$6,000
KIROS$1,100
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 (FY20–23, $34k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 74% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%HAND IN HAND: $25k → 12%NORTHWEST FAMILY LIFE: $9k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
WI
NY
OR
IA
IN
NJ
CA
MO
GA
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.

61%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.4M · 10 repeat orgs$1.5M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +46% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
21

Total granted

$2.4M
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+12%

Still filing today

90%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 10% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $400k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
ReligionHuman ServicesInternationalPhilanthropyEducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • CU
    CHRISTIAN UNION INC
    4× · 2018–2023 · $851k · revenue +46%
  • MEDICAL TEAMS INTERNATIONAL
    5× · 2018–2022 · $333k · revenue +49%
  • C
    CoLink
    2× · 2018–2019 · $100k · revenue +37%

Funded once

  • AC
    ANNA C MACASKILL SCHWAB AND DWIGHT L SCHWAB
    one grant, 2023 · $721k · revenue +17%
  • SC
    SEATTLE CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $78k · revenue +26%
  • HI
    HAND IN HAND
    one grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue -103%
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
Christian Mission for the United Nations Community

Christian Mission for the United Nations Community is a ministry aimed at leading the head of every nation and other top leaders to faith in Jesus Christ and helping them to walk in dependence upon God as they discharge the…

—
2
Christianity Today International

Christianity Today is a global community inspired by evangelical conviction to advance the stories and ideas of the kingdom of God. Our mission is to elevate the storytellers and sages of the global church.

Religion
3
Christar International Inc

Christar international serves as a catalyst to the network of christar ministries by facilitating and encouraging partnerships with churches who sen dout men and women who proclaim the gospel for life-giving transformation in communitiesw…

Religion
4
Washington Prayer Coalition

to spread the gospel to the world by planting and serving churches, training local Christian leaders and to transform the world through prayer,

Religion
5
International Leadership Institute

The international leadership institute (ili) changes history by accelerating the spread of the gospel through training and mobilizing leaders of leaders to reach their nations. ili accomplishes this purpose through cutting edge leadership…

Religion
6
Crossing Cultures International Inc

Crossing Cultures International, Inc. exists to glorify God by equipping Christ followers globally with comprehensive training for effective ministry.

Religion
7
Youth for Christ International Ministries

As part of the body of Christ, to see that every young person in every people group in every nation has the opportunity to make an informed decision to be a follower of Jesus Christ and become a part of the local church.

Religion
8
Dallas International University

As a christian university, we provide education and research opportunities preparing global leaders to partner with local communities.

Education
9
Next Worldwide Inc

With a desire to see the Gospel proclaimed in all nations, we exist to make and multiply disciples of the next generation through the vehicles of church-planting missions and missional leadership training.

—
10
Alongside Inc

Restore hope, purpose, passion and relationships among Christian leaders who are making an impact around the world.

Religion
11
Selah International Counseling Ministries

The mission of Selah International Counseling Ministries is to glorify God as we serve and equip His church, providing leadership and service through counseling, counseling resources, and counseling training.

Health
12
Global City Missions Initiative Incorporated

Global City Mission Initiative is dedicated to cross-cultural evanglism, disciplemaking, church planting among diverse diaspora populations in strategic cities reaching out evangelistically to start multiply churches, training believers to…

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Christian Union Inc; the most unlike its peers is Anna C Macaskill Schwab and Dwight L Schwab. 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

25 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. 25 of the 34 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/25
Grantees still filing
16/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION: $993,745 · OtherNATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONLeadership Development DBA Centered: $50,000 · OtherHAND IN HAND: $50,000 · Other+13 more: $196,000 · Other+13 moreANNA C MACASKILL SCHWAB AND DWIGHT L SCHWAB: $721,000 · PhilanthropyANNA C MACASKILL SCHWAB AND DWIGH…NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INC: $383,500 · PhilanthropyNATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INCSEATTLE CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION: $78,000 · PhilanthropySEATTLE CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONCHRISTIAN UNION INC: $851,060 · ReligionCHRISTIAN UNION INCUrban Impact: $50,000 · Religion+4 more: $55,600 · Religion+4 moreMEDICAL TEAMS INTERNATIONAL: $332,500 · InternationalMEDICAL TEAM…CoLink: $100,000 · InternationalCoLink+1 more: $7,500 · InternationalVITAL SOLUTIONS INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesHAND IN HAND: $25,000 · Human ServicesNorthwest Family Life Learning And Counseling Center: $9,000 · Human ServicesELEVATE NEW YORK INC: $25,000 · Youth DevelopmentFELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentAcres of Diamonds: $25,000 · Health
Other$1,289,745Philanthropy$1,182,500Religion$956,660International$440,000Human Services$59,000Youth Development$35,000Health$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHRISTIAN UNION INC: $851,060 over 4y, 9.8% of budgetNATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INC: $383,500 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetMEDICAL TEAMS INTERNATIONAL: $332,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetCoLink: $100,000 over 2y, 5.0% of budgetSEATTLE CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION: $78,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetLeadership Development DBA Centered: $50,000 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetHAND IN HAND: $50,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetUrban Impact: $50,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetAcres of Diamonds: $25,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetC3 LEADERS: $25,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetNEW YORK FELLOWSHIP INC: $25,000 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetVITAL SOLUTIONS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetHAND IN HAND: $25,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetSAGAMORE INSTITUTE INC: $16,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNorthwest Family Life Learning And Counseling Center: $9,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetAGROS INTERNATIONAL: $7,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTELEIOS: $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetKIROS: $2,600 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetSEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHWEST UNIVERSITY: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Natl Christian Charit…M J Murdock Charitabl…Servant FoundationEncourage & Impact Fo…McKinstry Charitable …Puget Sound Energy Fo…The Signatry Charitab…Seattle FoundationThe Blackbaud Giving …Ge Aerospace Foundati…National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…
Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA17.1× affinity20 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · Servant Foundation · Encourage & Impact Foundation · McKinstry Charitable Foundation · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · The Signatry Charitable Trust · Seattle Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Ge Aerospace Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc

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 The Bridgehead Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Bridgehead Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 14%
  • Medical Teams International: 14% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Bridgehead Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Bridgehead Foundation 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 34 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Bridgehead’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