Skip to content

· Private foundation

Milhouse Charities

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.

$32k
Granted FY2023
7
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$9k
Largest
01What it funds
0177% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Community Improvement$334kEducation$173kHousing & Shelter$62kFood & Nutrition$27kHealth$24kYouth Development$11kEnvironment$10kScience & Tech$4kOther$0
02FY2023 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CULINARY CARE$9,000
PROJECT SYNCERE$5,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
POLISHED PEBBLES$5,000
Individual grant recipient$1,500
THE CHICAGO COMMUNITY TRUST - 47TH AND COTTAGE PROJECT$1,250
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 (FY19–19, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CHA Springboard to Success: $2k → 14%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.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$504k · 20 repeat orgs$195k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +40% since the first grant, against +22% for those funded once.

20 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2023, 14 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

20
36

Total granted

$504k
$193k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+40%
+22%

Still filing today

50%
36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
EducationCommunity ImprovementHealthFood & NutritionEnvironmentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • PS
    PROJECT SYNCERE
    6× · 2017–2023 · $69k · revenue +13%
  • AA
    AEROSTAR AVION INSTITUTE
    2× · 2020–2021 · $39k · revenue +171%
  • CC
    Culinary Care
    4× · 2019–2023 · $27k · revenue +107%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $85k
  • RP
    Resilience Partners NFPgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue +38%
  • SC
    southwest chicago christian school
    one grant, 2019 · $15k
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
The Wong Center for Education

To strengthen, enhance and enrich students interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) educational programs for elementary, middle and high school students in the Chicagoland area and assist eligible students in the…

Education
2
Girls On the Run - Chicago Inc

The organization is a nonprofit after school program that uses the power of running to teach girls, 3rd-8th grade, critical social emotional learning skills.

Recreation & Sports
3
Chicago Votes

Chicago Votes is a non-partisan, non-profit organization building a more inclusive democracy by putting power in the hands of young Chicagoans. We're engaging and developing a new generation of leaders by opening the doors of government,…

Civil Rights
4
Tutoring Chicago

Tutoring chicago delivers the power of education through one-to-one tutoring.

Arts & Culture
5
The Chicago Network Inc

In furtherance of its charitable and educational goals, the Network's activities consist primarily of providing educational opportunities for its members and the public on issues related to the advancement of women in the workplace. As the…

Community Improvement
6
Stem for Her Foundation

To promote education and to create awareness, excitement, and opportunities among girls and young women to launch successful stem-related careers.

Youth Development
7
Aia Chicago Foundation

Aia chicago foundation invests in chicago's next generation of architectural change-makers by awarding scholarships, grants, and recognition.

—
8
Chicago Pre-College Science and Engineering Program

To prepare children from underrepresented groups, African American and Latino, for careers in science and mathematics.

Education
9
The Chicago Scholars Foundation

Chicago scholars is transforming the leadership landscape of our city by resolving the fundamental barriers to success for academically driven, first generation college students from under-resourced communities.

Education
10
Impact Grants Chicago

Impact Grants Chicago connects, engages and inspires women to improve the community of Chicago by collectively funding $100,000 grants to Chicago nonprofits that are dedicated to addressing the challenges facing the city.

Philanthropy
11
Lumity

Lumity and our partners seek to break down the barriers between stem-related businesses, chicagoland schools, and under-resourced chicagoland communities. we work with over 25 corporate partners and five high schools to provide teens with…

Science & Tech
12
ChiArts Foundation

Support and promotion of arts education programs at chicago high school for the arts. the organization may also support other educational activities in furtherance of the arts.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Girls 4 Science; the most unlike its peers is Culinary Care. 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

27 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. 27 of the 57 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/27
Grantees still filing
17/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $234,114 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $84,775 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTHE CHICAGO COMMUNITY TRUST - 47TH AND COTTAGE PROJECT: $33,019 · OtherTHE CHICAGO COMMUNITY TRUST - 47TH AND COTTAGE PROJECTHabitat for Humanity: $27,300 · OtherHabitat for Humanity+36 more: $108,223 · Other+36 morePROJECT SYNCERE: $68,750 · EducationPROJECT SYNCEREAEROSTAR AVION INSTITUTE: $39,000 · EducationAEROSTAR AVION INSTIT…MATHCOUNTS Foundation: $9,070 · EducationMATHCOUNTS FoundationUniversity of Chicago: $5,000 · Education+3 more: $9,750 · Education+3 moreCulinary Care: $27,000 · Food & NutritionMARCH OF DIMES INC: $13,250 · HealthLoretto Hospital Foundation: $3,500 · HealthTRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH FOUNDATION: $1,940 · HealthResilience Partners NFP: $15,000 · Community ImprovementCHIGIVESBACK INC: $550 · Community Improvement+2 more: $500 · Community ImprovementForest Preserve Foundation Inc: $10,000 · EnvironmentREFLECTION FOUNDATION: $7,500 · Philanthropy
Other$487,431Education$131,570Food & Nutrition$27,000Health$18,690Community Improvement$16,050Environment$10,000Philanthropy$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPROJECT SYNCERE: $68,750 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetAEROSTAR AVION INSTITUTE: $39,000 over 2y, 7.9% of budgetCulinary Care: $27,000 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetMARCH OF DIMES INC: $13,250 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetForest Preserve Foundation Inc: $10,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetMATHCOUNTS Foundation: $9,070 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetREFLECTION FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLoretto Hospital Foundation: $3,500 over 1y, 14% of budgetACE TECH ENDOWMENT FUND: $3,500 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetWESTERN SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS: $3,500 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetGIRLS 4 SCIENCE: $3,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetAKARAMA FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSPRINGBOARD TO SUCCESS INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMERCY HOUSING LAKEFRONT: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH FOUNDATION: $1,940 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetTREE HOUSE HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMUSIC WILL INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHIGIVESBACK INC: $550 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS ILLINOIS: $485 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCity Club of Chicago: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE YOUNG WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP CHARTER SCHOOL OF CHICAGO: $100 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 PROJECT SYNCERE ↗
  • Who funds AEROSTAR AVION INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds Culinary Care ↗
  • Who funds Resilience Partners NFP ↗
  • Who funds MARCH OF DIMES INC ↗
  • Who funds Forest Preserve Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds MATHCOUNTS Foundation ↗
  • Who funds REFLECTION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds EL VALOR CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds Loretto Hospital Foundation ↗
  • Who funds ACE TECH ENDOWMENT FUND ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS ↗
  • Who funds ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds GIRLS 4 SCIENCE ↗
  • Who funds AKARAMA FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds SPRINGBOARD TO SUCCESS INC ↗
  • Who funds MERCY HOUSING LAKEFRONT ↗
  • Who funds TRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH FOUNDATION ↗

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.

The Chicago Community TrustIL24.4× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

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 Milhouse Charities funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Milhouse Charities. 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 Milhouse Charities?

    Find your warmest path to Milhouse Charities 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 57 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Milhouse Charities’ filings →

    More from the funding graph