How much does Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation give?

Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation reported 16 grants totaling $138,817 in its FY2025 IRS filing. It funded between 12 and 19 organizations a year over FY2021 to FY2024.

What does Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation fund?

By grant dollars over FY2021 to FY2025, its largest causes are Religion (22%), Recreation & Sports (18%), Education (15%).

Who are Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation's largest grantees?

By total granted over FY2021 to FY2025: Impact Church ($103k), Lowell Wrestling Club ($79k), Dairy Discovery ($78k).

Does Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation fund new organizations?

In FY2024, 42% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.

Does Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation accept unsolicited applications?

Its most recent filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and does not take unsolicited requests. Check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

Which funders back the same organizations as Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include Grand Rapids Community Foundation, Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc, Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund.

Where is Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation based?

Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation is based in MI.

Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation

Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$139k

Granted FY2025still arriving

Grants FY2025still arriving

States reached

$35k

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, FY2021 to 2025.

Religion$130kRecreation & Sports$106kEducation$90kFood & Nutrition$82kEmployment$57kHealth$49kHuman Services$47kYouth Development$19kOther$0

02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

Under $10k11 grants · $27k
$10k–50k5 grants · $112k

$5,000

Median grant

States reached

$2.1M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
IMPACT CHURCH	$35,000
DAIRY DISCOVERY	$27,500
BRODYS BE CAFE	$22,500
FLAT RIVER OUTREACH MINISTRIES	$16,667
ASPIRE OUTREACH MINISTRIES	$10,000
LOWELL WRESTING CLUB	$8,550
BAYSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH	$6,000
PINKY SWEAR FOUNDATION	$5,000
LOWELL HIGH SCHOOL	$2,500
GOPHER WRESTLING CLUB	$1,000
LONGBOAT KEY GARDEN CLUB	$1,000
Individual grant recipient	$1,000
LOWELL LACROSS CLUB	$600
MSU WRESTLING CLUB	$500
THORNAPPLE VALLEY BASEBALL & SOFTBALL LEAGUE	$500

02The need

Does the money reach high-need areas?

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

US giving: 88% of grant dollars ($519k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 12% that went abroad ($69k) is mapped below.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $67k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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

Beyond the US: 12% of all-years giving ($69k)

1 country, by the recipient’s country on the filing.

grant dollars sentlessmore

Gambia$69k · 1 grant

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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 11% of Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 75% of the giving stays in MI; by stated purpose, 68%.

Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundationlessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address · 12% directed abroad (not shown)

How this is measured

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Its grantees

repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$476k · 17 repeat orgs$111k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +42% since the first grant, against +13% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$476k

$97k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%

+13%

Still filing today

47%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Recreation & SportsHuman ServicesCivil RightsHealthEnvironmentEmploymentOther

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

LW
LOWELL WRESTLING CLUB
5× · 2021–2025 · $79k · revenue +141%
BC
BE CAFE
4× · 2022–2025 · $57k · revenue +203%
FR
FLAT RIVER OUTREACH MINISTRIES INC
4× · 2021–2025 · $37k · revenue +60%

Funded once

GE
GOLDEN ERA SCHOOL
one grant, 2024 · $69k
VV
VAIL VETERANS FOUNDATION INC
one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue -63%
LC
LOWELL COMMUNITY WELLNESS
one grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue -96%

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.

Lowell Farm and Wildlife Center

Animals

Plymouth Canton Little League

Youth baseball and softball recreational league

—

Greater Lowell Road Runners Club

Greater lowell road runners club promotes adult and youth running in the greater lowell area and organizes road races and running events

—

West Michigan Riptide Athletics Inc

Youth sports

—

Greater Loup Valley Activities

—

Wellsboro Little League

Little league baseball organization.

—

Canyon Lake Little League Baseball

Little league baseball for youth

—

Lowell Baseball Inc

Youth baseball league

Recreation & Sports

Lake Stevens Little League

Little league believes in the power of youth baseball and softball to teach life lessons tht build stronger individuals and communities

Recreation & Sports

Whaling City Little Baseball League

Youth Baseball Instruction, Competition, and Tournament

—

Loomis Youth Soccer Club

Youth recreational soccer

—

Beverly Lacrosse Boosters Association

Beverly lacrosse boosters association is formed to promote lacrosse in beverly, massachusetts and support all levels from youth to high school lacrosse programs for boys and girls. the objectives include promotion of competiive lacrosse,…

Recreation & Sports

How this is measured

The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is First Liberty Institute; the most unlike its peers is Lowell Youth Sports Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 39 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

18/18

Grantees still filing

9/18

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Other$282,081Recreation & Sports$85,100Food & Nutrition$78,283Human Services$74,667Employment$57,000Health$6,000Civil Rights$4,750

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

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.

Grand Rapids Community FoundationMI17.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Grand Rapids Community Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mitchell and Sarah Miller Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

1get 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 · 0–5%

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.

Play a game based on Mitchell and Sarah Miller’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