· Private foundation
Mark and Maureen Miller Family Fd
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $18k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $210k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $580k
- $250k+1 grant · $1.1M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO | $1,130,000 |
| DENVER RESCUE MISSION | $115,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY | $100,000 |
| AMERICAN RED CROSS | $100,000 |
| CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES | $75,000 |
| FOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIES | $70,000 |
| SCOUTING AMERICA-NE COUNCIL | $65,000 |
| NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK | $55,000 |
| VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA CO | $40,000 |
| PANTHERA CORPORATION | $40,000 |
| WILD FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS | $30,000 |
| MAYO CLINIC | $30,000 |
| RUSH UNIRVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER | $10,000 |
| EVANS SCHOLARS FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $2.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 98% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +56% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
69 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 55 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $251k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
University of Chicago9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +56%- ANAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +46%
- NINORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK9× · 2017–2025 · $515k · revenue +43%
Funded once
- YVYAMPAY VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FDone grant, 2024 · $200k
- EAEMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $100k · revenue +188%
- ICInternational Conservation Fund Corpone grant, 2024 · $70k · revenue 0%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
A nonprofit scientific research organization that develops vaccines and antibodies for hiv, tuberculosis, and emerging infectious diseases.
To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.
Assist banner health complete its mission to make health care easier so life can be better by providing integrated & coordinated care & population health management.
The organization provides medical care to improve, maintain, and restore the health of the people in the communities we serve.
Unite blood and biologics donors, talent, and innovation to save and improve lives.
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…
Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.
People inc. provides health and human services that enrich lives and communities through innovation and supportive services. with a goal to help people achieve greater independence and quality of life, people inc. provides day,…
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
Engage actively and continuously in medical research, education and training in the practice of medicine in conjunction with the department of family medicine of the indiana university school of medicine and indiana university…
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Action Against Hunger - Usa and the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 48 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
57 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 57 of the 122 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds University of Chicago ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds DENVER RESCUE MISSION ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIES ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Erie Family Health Center Inc ↗
- Who funds Purdue Research Foundation ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds THE LAKE COUNTY HAVEN ↗
- Who funds MAP International Inc ↗
- Who funds Rush University Medical Center ↗
- Who funds FOOD FOR THE POOR INC ↗
- Who funds MAYO CLINIC ↗
- Who funds OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL INC D/B/A OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL-US ↗
- Who funds CLEARBROOK ↗
- Who funds EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds FEED MY STARVING CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds PADS Lake County Inc ↗
- Who funds International Conservation Fund Corp ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds ACTION AGAINST HUNGER - USA ↗
- Who funds GROWING GARDENS OF BOULDER COUNTY ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Trustmark Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · The Chicago Community Trust · The Lake County Community Foundation · George M Eisenberg Foundation for Charities · Helen V Brach Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Baxter International Foundation · The Medline Foundation · John and Kathleen Schreiber Foundation D/B/A Schreiber Philanthropy
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Mark and Maureen Miller Family Fd funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Food for the Poor Inc — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Mark and Maureen Miller Family Fd?
Find your warmest path to Mark and Maureen Miller Family Fd 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.