Skip to content
Sippy Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Sippy 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.

$75k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$13k
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 2025.

Arts & Culture$463kEnvironment$52kRecreation & Sports$43kReligion$35kFood & Nutrition$30kCommunity Improvement$25kEducation$20kScience & Tech$8kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $55k
$5,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$518k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA$12,500
MONTANA POOL SERVICE FOUNDATION$12,500
CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M$10,000
MISSOULA ART MUSEUM$10,000
FILM INDEPENDENT INC$10,000
WILD SALMON CENTER$5,000
BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE$5,000
CLIMATE SMART MISSOULA$5,000
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION$1,500
MONTANA NATURAL HISTORY CENTER INC$1,000
THOMPSON RIVER ANIMAL CARE SHELTER$1,000
AMIGOS OF COSTA RICA INC$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 9% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $5k → 9%BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE: $5k → 16%THOMPSON RIVER ANIMAL CARE SHELTER: $1k → 17%FILM INDEPENDENT INC: $10k → 14%LOGGERHEAD MARINELIFE CENTER: $5k → 11%MUSIC THEATRE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE: $7k → 5%WILD SALMON CENTER: $5k → 12%FRIENDS OF SENATOBIA ANIMALS: $5k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $5k → 9%BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE: $5k → 16%THOMPSON RIVER ANIMAL CARE SHELTER: $1k → 17%LOGGERHEAD MARINELIFE CENTER: $3k → 11%CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M: $10k → 5%WILD SALMON CENTER: $5k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $5k → 9%BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE: $5k → 16%THOMPSON RIVER ANIMAL CARE SHELTER: $1k → 17%CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M: $10k → 5%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $3k → 9%BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE: $5k → 16%CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M: $10k → 5%UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $2k → 9%BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE: $2k → 16%CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M: $10k → 5%CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M: $10k → 5%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $285k → 9%CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M: $10k → 5%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $50k → 9%CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M: $5k → 5%MISSOULA DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION: $15k → 9%CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $13k → 9%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $10k → 9%MISSOULA DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION: $10k → 9%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $10k → 9%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $10k → 9%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $10k → 9%CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $7k → 9%CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $7k → 9%CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $6k → 9%CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $6k → 9%CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $6k → 9%CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $6k → 9%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $5k → 9%NORTH MISSOULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN: $5k → 9%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $5k → 9%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $5k → 9%MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $5k → 9%MONTANA POOL SERVICE FOUNDATION: $13k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 5% of Sippy Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Sippy Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$647k · 12 repeat orgs$50k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +35% since the first grant, against -6% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
4

Total granted

$647k
$25k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
-6%

Still filing today

92%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 67% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentArts & CultureEducationAnimalsScience & TechCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • MA
    MISSOULA ART MUSEUM
    6× · 2020–2025 · $395k · revenue +197% · 27% of their budget
  • CS
    CLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA
    6× · 2020–2025 · $51k · revenue +298%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF MISSOULA PARKS INC
    6× · 2017–2023 · $30k · revenue ×11

Funded once

  • YH
    YOUTH HOMES
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue -6%
  • MT
    MUSIC THEATRE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
    one grant, 2020 · $7k · revenue -51%
  • NC
    NORTH-MISSOULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue +786%
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
Missoula Community Foundation

To enhance community vitality by inspiring community giving and strengthening nonprofits

Community Improvement
2
The Montana Land Reliance

The mission of the montana land reliance (mlr) is to partner with landowners to provide permanent protection for private lands that are significant for agricultural production, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space.

Environment
3
Montana Chamber of Commerce

To create and sustain an optimal business climate, business prosperity and a strong montana economy through advocacy, education and collaboration, working to provide an empowered and educated workforce, reduce business growth obstacles,…

—
4
Montana Wildlife Federation

The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.

Animals
5
Montanas Outdoor Legacy Foundation

To collectively serve as a catalyst for engagement and bonding of people to our wildlife and public lands in montana through a sense of place, education, access, research and stewardship.

Environment
6
Montana Association of Conservation Districts

To heighten the public's awareness of conservation districts and their activities as well as to promote soil and water conservation.

—
7
McKenzie River Trust

Acquire and manage land and conservation easements through purchase and donation to ensure long term conservation of clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and other community values.

Environment
8
Missoula Area Chamber of Commerce

An association providing community leadership and business advocacy sustaining economic vitality.

—
9
Missoula Butterfly House and Insectarium

To inspire an appreciation and understanding of insects and their relatives.

Animals
10
Montana State Parks Foundation

The montana state parks foundation raises private support to enhance the visitors experience and build advocates for montanas state parks and recreation heritage.

Recreation & Sports
11
Montana Wilderness Association

Uniting and mobilizing communities to keep montana wild.

Environment
12
Montana Conservation Society

The corporation's purposes shall include, but not be limited to conducting or supporting programs to promote and advocate for land and water conservation issues and to educate the public regarding the conservation related issues addressed…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wild Salmon Center; the most unlike its peers is Montana Pool Service 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 20 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
11/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $395,000 · Arts & CultureMISSOULA ART MUSEUM+1 more: $10,000 · Arts & CultureCHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION UNITED M: $65,000 · OtherCHURCH OF THE RESU…MISSOULA DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION: $25,000 · OtherMISSOULA DOWNTOWN …MUSIC THEATRE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE: $7,000 · OtherMUSIC THEATRE FOR …FRIENDS OF SENATOBIA ANIMALS: $5,000 · OtherLOGGERHEAD MARINELIFE CENTER INC: $8,000 · OtherLOGGERHEAD MARINEL…NORTH-MISSOULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $5,000 · Other+1 more: $1,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF MISSOULA PARKS INC: $30,250 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF …BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $23,000 · EnvironmentBLACKFOOT C…CLIMATE SMART MISSOULA INC: $10,000 · EnvironmentCLIMATE SMA…CAPTAINS FOR CLEAN WATER INC: $7,500 · EnvironmentCAPTAINS FO…+1 more: $1,000 · EnvironmentCLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $50,500 · EducationCLAY STUDIO…THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $20,000 · EducationTHE UNIVERS…WILD SALMON CENTER: $10,000 · AnimalsThompson River Animal Care Shelter: $3,000 · AnimalsMONTANA POOL SERVICE FOUNDATION: $12,500 · PhilanthropyYOUTH HOMES: $8,000 · Human Services
Arts & Culture$405,000Other$116,000Environment$71,750Education$70,500Animals$13,000Philanthropy$12,500Human Services$8,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMISSOULA ART MUSEUM: $395,000 over 6y, 27% of budgetCLAY STUDIO OF MISSOULA: $50,500 over 6y, 3.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF MISSOULA PARKS INC: $30,250 over 6y, 8.8% of budgetMISSOULA DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION: $25,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetBLACKFOOT CHALLENGE INC: $23,000 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetFILM INDEPENDENT: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWILD SALMON CENTER: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCLIMATE SMART MISSOULA INC: $10,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetYOUTH HOMES: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLOGGERHEAD MARINELIFE CENTER INC: $8,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCAPTAINS FOR CLEAN WATER INC: $7,500 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetMUSIC THEATRE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE: $7,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetNORTH-MISSOULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $5,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetThompson River Animal Care Shelter: $3,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetMONTANA NATURAL HISTORY CENTER: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMIGOS OF COSTA RICA INC: $1,000 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.

Dennis & Phyllis Wash…Max and Betty Swanson…The Llewellyn Foundat…The High Stakes Found…First Interstate Banc…The Appleseed Foundat…James G and Marcia H …The Bill & Rosemary G…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Dennis & Phyllis Washington FoundationMT17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Max and Betty Swanson Foundation · The Llewellyn Foundation · The High Stakes Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · The Appleseed Foundation · James G and Marcia H Valeo Charitable Fd · The Bill & Rosemary Gallagher Foundation · 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 Sippy Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sippy Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 49%
  • Wild Salmon Center: 49% of income from government
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
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 Sippy Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Sippy 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 20 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Sippy’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