Skip to content
Stephen D Mitchell Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Stephen D Mitchell Foundation Inc

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.

$152k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$45k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$593kRecreation & Sports$231kHealth$152kEducation$38kHuman Services$31kYouth Development$31kFood & Nutrition$6kPublic Safety & Disaster$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k13 grants · $46k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $106k
$5,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOLY TRINITY ANGLICAN CHURCH$45,000
Individual grant recipient$40,000
CHALLENGE TO CONQUER CANCER$11,000
MITCHELL ROAD CHRISTIAN ACADEMY$10,000
ST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH$7,000
THOMAS HEYWARD ACADEMY$6,000
ST JAMES SANTEE BRICK CHURCH$5,000
MILL VILLAGE FARMS$5,000
AKANIMO CANCER FOUNDATION$5,000
REBUILD UPSTATE$5,000
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY$4,000
WHEELCHAIRS 4 KIDS$3,000
POE MILL ACCIEVEMENT CENTER$2,000
FRIENDS OF PARIS MOUNTAIN$1,000
THE JULIE VALENTINE FOUNDATION$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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–25, $28k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, 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.

area typical 10%WHEELCHAIRS 4 KIDS: $3k → 12%LET THERE BE MOM: $5k → 10%CENTER FOR DEVEOPMENTAL SERVICES: $6k → 10%LET THERE BE MOM: $5k → 10%LET THERE BE MOM: $5k → 10%LET THERE BE MOM: $4k → 10%YMCA OF GREENVILLE: $300 → 10%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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 20 repeat orgs$156k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +37% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

20 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

20
18

Total granted

$1.2M
$124k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%
+10%

Still filing today

50%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 79% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $32k 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
HealthHuman ServicesEducationReligionYouth DevelopmentFood & NutritionOther
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

  • CS
    CANCER SURVIVORS PARK ALLIANCE
    6× · 2018–2024 · $47k · revenue +12%
  • TH
    THOMAS HEYWARD ACADEMY INC
    6× · 2018–2025 · $28k · revenue +30%
  • YL
    YOUNG LIFE
    5× · 2017–2021 · $21k · revenue +59%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $25k
  • SA
    ST ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
  • NC
    NEIGHBORHOOD CANCER CONNECTIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $16k · revenue +45%
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
Curesearch for Children's Cancer

Curesearch's mission is to fund & support targeted & innovative cancer research with measurable results, & to be the authoritative source of information & resources for all those affected by children's cancer. see schedule o for…

Health
2
Targeting Resistance in Cancer Cooperative
Health
3
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
4
Beat Childhood Cancer Foundation Inc

Beat childhood cancer drives childhood cancer research and raises awareness, making a difference in kids' survival today. our vision is to change the story for the next family by finding viable treatments and ultimately, cures for…

Health
5
Commonwealth Cancer Consortium Inc

Break through cancer is a foundation dedicated to supporting translational research in the most difficult to treat cancers. our partner organizations are among the top cancer research centers and together, represent some of the most…

—
6
Children's Cancer Partners of the Carolinas Inc

Childrens cancer partners' mission is to provide resources, community, and compassion to children with cancer and their families.

Youth Development
7
Oncology and Kids Inc

To help kids and families heal the emotional scars of childhood cancer and learn to thrive.

Human Services
8
Dana-Farber Children's Hospital Cancer Care Inc

To oversee, coordinate and support the Pediatric Oncology Programs at Boston Children's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc.

Health
9
Cancer Services Inc

Our mission is "enhancing health, life & survivorship" for those living with cancer in our community.

Health
10
The Children's Cancer Cause Inc

The mission of children's cancer cause is to champion policies and programs that improve the lives of children with cancer and survivors.

Health
11
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc

The mission of dfci is to provide expert, compassionate, and equitable care to children, adults, and their families, while advancing the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer and related diseases. we train new…

Health
12
The Johns Hopkins Hospital

For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Meyer Center for Special Children; the most unlike its peers is Partnership for ReNEWaL. 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

24 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. 24 of the 46 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)
24/24
Grantees still filing
13/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $275,000 · OtherST JAMES EPISCOPAL CHURCHYMCA CAMP GREENVILLE: $230,000 · OtherYMCA CAMP GREENVILLEFAITH CHAPEL: $128,500 · OtherFAITH CHAPELIndividual grant recipient: $95,200 · OtherIndividual grant recipientHOLY TRINITY ANGLICAN CHURCH: $75,000 · OtherHOLY TRINITY ANGLICAN CHURCHST ANDREWS CHURCH: $60,000 · OtherST ANDREWS CHURCHTHE BRICK CHURCH: $50,000 · Other+20 more: $156,500 · Other+20 moreCHALLENGE TO CONQUER CANCER: $53,000 · HealthCHALLENGE …CANCER SURVIVORS PARK ALLIANCE: $47,100 · HealthCANCER SUR…AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $10,300 · HealthAMERICAN C…AKANIMO CANCER FOUNDATION: $5,000 · HealthSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $4,160 · Health+3 more: $5,100 · HealthTHOMAS HEYWARD ACADEMY INC: $28,000 · EducationTHE FRAZEE CENTER: $16,000 · EducationPOE MILL ACHIEVEMENT CENTER: $2,000 · EducationPartnership for ReNEWaL: $30,000 · ReligionREBUILD UPSTATE: $5,000 · ReligionLET THERE BE MOM INC: $19,000 · Human ServicesCENTER FOR DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES: $6,000 · Human ServicesWheelchairs 4 Kids Inc: $3,000 · Human Services+1 more: $300 · Human ServicesYOUNG LIFE: $21,000 · Youth DevelopmentTRIUNE MERCY CENTER: $5,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$1,070,200Health$124,660Education$46,000Religion$35,000Human Services$28,300Youth Development$21,000Food & Nutrition$5,000

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 budgetCHALLENGE TO CONQUER CANCER: $53,000 over 9y, 5.5% of budgetCANCER SURVIVORS PARK ALLIANCE: $47,100 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetPartnership for ReNEWaL: $30,000 over 3y, 6.1% of budgetTHOMAS HEYWARD ACADEMY INC: $28,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetYOUNG LIFE: $21,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetMEYER CENTER FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN: $20,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetLET THERE BE MOM INC: $19,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD CANCER CONNECTION: $16,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetTHE FRAZEE CENTER: $16,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $10,300 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS INC: $7,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCENTER FOR DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES: $6,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTRIUNE MERCY CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetREBUILD UPSTATE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $4,160 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $3,100 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWheelchairs 4 Kids Inc: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPOE MILL ACHIEVEMENT CENTER: $2,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FAMILY EFFECT: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetYMCA OF GREENVILLE: $300 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.

  • Who funds CHALLENGE TO CONQUER CANCER ↗
  • Who funds CANCER SURVIVORS PARK ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds Partnership for ReNEWaL ↗
  • Who funds THOMAS HEYWARD ACADEMY INC ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG LIFE ↗
  • Who funds MEYER CENTER FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds LET THERE BE MOM INC ↗
  • Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD CANCER CONNECTION ↗
  • Who funds THE FRAZEE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS INC ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds TRIUNE MERCY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds REBUILD UPSTATE ↗
  • Who funds AKANIMO CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNITED HOUSING CONNECTIONS ↗
  • Who funds SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
  • Who funds Wheelchairs 4 Kids Inc ↗
  • Who funds POE MILL ACHIEVEMENT CENTER ↗

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.

Scsymmes FoundationDabo's All in Team Fo…Yeargin FoundationDaniel-Mickel Foundat…Duke Energy FoundationW W Burgiss Charities…John I Smith Charitie…United Way of Greenvi…Don Waggoner & Zelma …Jean T and Heyward G …Prisma Health-UpstateThe Jolley Foundation
Scsymmes FoundationMO22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Scsymmes Foundation · Dabo's All in Team Foundation · Yeargin Foundation · Daniel-Mickel Foundation · Duke Energy Foundation · W W Burgiss Charities Inc · John I Smith Charities Inc · United Way of Greenville County Inc · Don Waggoner & Zelma Waggoner Foundation · Jean T and Heyward G Pelham Foundation · Prisma Health-Upstate · The Jolley 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 Stephen D Mitchell Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Stephen D Mitchell Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 · 0–25%
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 46 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 Stephen D Mitchell’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