Skip to content
Frank A Miller Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Frank A Miller Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$35k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$17k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0179% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Philanthropy$25kPublic Safety & Disaster$16kRecreation & Sports$15kReligion$11kHealth$8kEducation$7kEnvironment$7kYouth Development$1kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
$5,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$475k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Sun Valley Foundation$17,000
ST Thomas Church$6,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
KBS Foundation$3,640
MSCL$2,500
Little Birthday Angeles$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 (FY21–24, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 80% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Little Birthday Angeles: $1k → 12%Swiftsure Ranch: $250 → 7%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

AK
ID
IL
WI
MI
NY
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CO
VA
AZ
NC
FL
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.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$64k · 7 repeat orgs$55k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +92% since the first grant, against +51% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
16

Total granted

$64k
$27k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+92%
+51%

Still filing today

29%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 21% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesRecreation & SportsEnvironmentHealthPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2022–2024 · $15k
  • D
    DHS
    3× · 2020–2022 · $15k
  • M
    MSCL
    4× · 2020–2024 · $13k

Funded once

  • SF
    SUNS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $7k
  • SV
    Sun Valley Alumni Association
    one grant, 2020 · $6k
  • PM
    Personalized Medicine Foundation Inc
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
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
Butte Amateur Hockey Association

To facilitate ice sports for the youth of silver bow county and the surronding communities.

—
2
SK8 Jh Inc

Create and cultivate ice skating in jackson hole and surrounding areas

Recreation & Sports
3
Boulder Valley Hockey Foundation

Supporting, developing, and training colorado youth for national and/or international competition in ice hockey.

—
4
Fairbanks Junior Ice Dogs Inc

To promote youth sports in the fairbanks area.

Recreation & Sports
5
Douglas Youth Hockey Association

To promote the sport of hockey in the douglas, wyoming area.

Recreation & Sports
6
Idaho Diabetes Youth Program

To enrich the lives of youth with diabetes

Youth Development
7
Seattle Junior Hockey Association

Seattle junior hockey association (sjha) focuses on the growth and development of hockey players and young individuals in a safe and positive environment.

Recreation & Sports
8
Gallatin Ice Foundation Inc

To provide the greater Gallatin valley community fun and affordable ice skating opportunities which include hockey, figure skating, and recreational ice skating for the citizens young and old, and of all skill levels.

Philanthropy
9
Team Gilboa Ski Club

Through alpine ski racing, we develop and inspire a community of young athletes who strive for excellence, compete with integrity, and pursue a lifelong love of skiing.

Recreation & Sports
10
High Sierra Lacrosse League

High sierra lacrosse league supports and promotes youth lacrosse in northern nevada and the tahoe-truckee area

Recreation & Sports
11
Gunnison Valley Hockey Association

Youth and adult hockey organization promoting the sport of ice hockey in gunnison, co.

Recreation & Sports
12
Salmon Hockey Association Inc

The salmon hockey association is a volunteer based group committed to bringing the joy of skating and hockey to the children and their families in the salmon area. we strive to provide a quality skating facility, safe recreational skating…

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sawtooth Society Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hospice and Palliative Care-Ko. 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

14 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 14 of the 28 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
9/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SUN VALLEY FOUNDATION: $17,000 · OtherSUN VALLEY FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientDHS: $15,000 · OtherDHSMSCL: $13,000 · OtherMSCLSun Valley Alumni Association: $6,000 · OtherSun Valley Alumni AssociationST THOMAS CHURCH: $6,000 · OtherST THOMAS CHURCHKBS FOUNDATION INC: $3,640 · OtherPersonalized Medicine Foundation Inc: $3,000 · Other+8 more: $8,900 · Other+8 moreSUN VALLEY JUNIOR HOCKEY INC: $12,500 · Recreation & SportsSUN VALLEY JUN…HAILEY ICE INC: $2,812 · Recreation & SportsHAILEY ICE INCSUNS FOUNDATION INC: $6,600 · PhilanthropyBRADLEY IMPACT FUND INC: $1,000 · PhilanthropySAWTOOTH SOCIETY INC: $5,500 · EnvironmentTHE COLORADO MOUNTAIN CLUB: $1,000 · EnvironmentLITTLE BIRTHDAY ANGELS INC: $1,000 · Human ServicesSWIFTSURE RANCH THERAPEUTIC EQUESTRIAN CENTER INC: $250 · Human ServicesDARIEN EMS POST 53 INC: $500 · HealthHospice and Palliative Care-Ko: $500 · HealthTHE SAGE SCHOOL INC: $500 · EducationLIVING WITH WOLVES LTD: $250 · Animals
Other$87,540Recreation & Sports$15,312Philanthropy$7,600Environment$6,500Human Services$1,250Health$1,000Education$500Animals$250

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 budgetSUN VALLEY JUNIOR HOCKEY INC: $12,500 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetSAWTOOTH SOCIETY INC: $5,500 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetHAILEY ICE INC: $2,812 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetVALLEY YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE COLORADO MOUNTAIN CLUB: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLITTLE BIRTHDAY ANGELS INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBRADLEY IMPACT FUND INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR RESEARCH ON SCHIZOPHRENIA AND DEPRESSION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDARIEN EMS POST 53 INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHospice and Palliative Care-Ko: $500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE SAGE SCHOOL INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSWIFTSURE RANCH THERAPEUTIC EQUESTRIAN CENTER INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLIVING WITH WOLVES LTD: $250 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.

Nancy Eccles and Home…Spur Community Founda…The Bessemer Giving F…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Nancy Eccles and Homer M Hayward Family FoundationUT15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Nancy Eccles and Homer M Hayward Family Foundation · Spur Community Foundation Inc · The Bessemer Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Frank A Miller Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Frank A Miller Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get 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 · 0–15%
    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 28 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 Frank A Miller Family’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