Skip to content
Miller Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Miller Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$588k
Granted FY2024still arriving
84
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$70k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$941kEducation$924kArts & Culture$757kCrime & Legal$400kCommunity Improvement$339kFood & Nutrition$325kRecreation & Sports$296kHealth$247kOther$0
02FY2024 · 84 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k64 grants · $67k
  • $10k–50k17 grants · $336k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $185k
$1,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$21M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEGAL SERVICES OF SOUTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN$70,000
CHARITABLE UNION$65,000
BC HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$50,000
SAFE PLACE$35,000
MUSIC CENTER OF SC MI$26,352
THE BARN THEATRE SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED TT$25,000
WHAT A DO THEATRE$25,000
SPROUT URBAN FARMS INC$25,000
NEIGHBORHOODS INC$25,000
NONPROFIT NETWORK$22,592
BRONSON HEALTH FOUNDATION$20,000
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS$20,000
Individual grant recipient$19,600
HARPER CREEK PUBLIC SCHOOLS$16,339
LOCAL INITIATIVE SUPPORT CORPORATION$16,000
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 (FY17–24, $875k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%VOCES: $12k → 8%NORTHERN INITIATIVES: $100k → 11%NONPROFIT NETWORK: $39k → 13%NONPROFIT NETWORK: $27k → 13%NONPROFIT NETWORK: $23k → 13%NONPROFIT NETWORK: $18k → 13%NONPROFIT NETWORK: $11k → 13%NON-PROFIT NETWORK: $8k → 13%NONPROFIT NETWORK: $5k → 13%CHARITABLE UNION: $65k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $60k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $60k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $53k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $50k → 14%VOCES: $50k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $50k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $46k → 14%VOCES: $30k → 14%VOCES: $25k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $16k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $10k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $3k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $3k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $3k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $2k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $2k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $2k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $2k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $2k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $2k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $1k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $1k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $1k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $1k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $1k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $1k → 14%VOCES: $1k → 14%VOCES: $1k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $1k → 14%CHARITABLE UNION: $1k → 14%ALANO CLUB OF BATTLE CREEK: $7k → 14%FOUNDATION FOR BEHAVIORAL RESOURCES: $5k → 14%FAMILY ENRICHMENT CENTER: $4k → 14%FAMILY ENRICHMENT CENTER: $3k → 14%VOCES: $20k → 14%SHARE CENTER: $15k → 14%SHARE CENTER: $15k → 14%SHARE CENTER: $1k → 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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.2M · 93 repeat orgs$630k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +42% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

93 repeat relationships: 46 still active in FY2024, 47 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

93
64

Total granted

$4.2M
$533k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
+1%

Still filing today

40%
17%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $97k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesArts & CultureHealthEducationCrime & LegalYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • CU
    CHARITABLE UNION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $446k · revenue +16%
  • MUSIC CENTER OF SOUTH CENTRAL MI
    8× · 2017–2024 · $380k · revenue +68%
  • MA
    Michigan Advocacy Program
    5× · 2018–2024 · $350k · revenue +125%

Funded once

  • NORTHERN GREAT LAKES INITIATIVES
    one grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue -19%
  • CC
    CALHOUN COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
    one grant, 2020 · $50k
  • MC
    MUSIC CENTER OF SCMI
    one grant, 2020 · $44k
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
Lincoln Behavioral Services

To provide comprehensive outpatient mental health services to over 5400 individuals and their families in a consumer driven person centered delivery system. Approximately 15% of our staff members are our clients who are involved in a…

Health
2
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
3
Mid Michigan Community Action Agency Inc

Mid michigan community action guides local residents on the path to self-sufficiency through empowerment, education and community enrichment.

—
4
Great Lakes Community Action Partnership

The mission of great lakes community action partnership is to create partnerships and opportunites to help individuals, families and communities thrive.

Human Services
5
Arbor Research Collaborative for Health

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…

Health
6
Great Lakes Center for the Arts

The Center's mission is to inspire, entertain, educate, and serve all in Northern Michigan year-round by presenting exceptional experiences across the full spectrum of the performing arts and offering impactful educational opportunities.

Arts & Culture
7
Bear Creek Community Charter School

Our mission is to embrace a diverse student body and student success through an innovative an innovative curriculum, the cultivation of environmental stewardship, and accountability.

Education
8
Leelanau Conservancy

To conserve the land, water and scenic character of leelanau county, and to provide educational programs to develop an understanding and appreciation of leelanau county's natural heritage.

Environment
9
Barry County United Way

None

Philanthropy
10
Dispute Resolution Centers of Michigan Inc

Provide affordable or free mediation services and conflict resolution trainings to support the transforming of our society into a collaborative and problem-solving one.

Crime & Legal
11
Bucksport Area Child Care Center

It is our mission to provide a child-centered environment, treating each child and family with respect.

Human Services
12
Michigan Anti-Cruelty Society

To maintain and operate a hospital, ambulance and veterinary services for the care of animals. the maintenance and operation of kennels and suitable chambers for the humane destruction of wounded animals.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Battle Creek Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Generation E Institute. 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

55 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. 55 of the 166 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
18
Early backer (in before they grew)
51/55
Grantees still filing
39/55
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE ROBERT B MILLER COLLEGE: $264,920 · OtherTHE ROBERT B MILLER COLLEGEBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS: $155,715 · OtherBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERSTHE BARN THEATRE' SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED TT: $100,000 · OtherLEILA ARBORETUM SOCIETY INC: $179,577 · OtherLEILA ARBORETUM SOCIETY INC+132 more: $1,372,091 · Other+132 moreCHARITABLE UNION: $445,984 · Human ServicesCHARITABLE UNIONSAFE PLACE: $206,865 · Human ServicesSAFE PLACEVOCES: $143,000 · Human ServicesVOCESNONPROFIT NETWORK: $131,250 · Human ServicesNONPROFIT NETWORKNORTHERN GREAT LAKES INITIATIVES: $100,000 · Human ServicesNORTHERN GREAT LAKES INI…+6 more: $54,790 · Human ServicesMUSIC CENTER OF SOUTH CENTRAL MI: $380,370 · Arts & CultureMUSIC CENTER OF…WHAT A DO THEATRE: $106,089 · Arts & CultureWHAT A DO THEAT…BURMESE AMERICAN INITIATIVE INC: $98,500 · Arts & CultureBURMESE AMERICA…KINGMAN MUSEUM INC: $36,700 · Arts & CultureKINGMAN MUSEUM …+3 more: $40,096 · Arts & Culture+3 moreMichigan Advocacy Program: $349,500 · Crime & LegalCALHOUN COUNTY GUARDIAN DBA GUARDIAN FIN: $15,500 · Crime & Legal+1 more: $700 · Crime & LegalNEW LEVEL SPORTS: $292,992 · Youth DevelopmentGIRL SCOUTS HEART OF MICHIGAN: $16,000 · Youth DevelopmentSPROUT URBAN FARMS INC: $275,050 · Food & NutritionBronson Health Foundation: $100,500 · HealthSPECIALIZED LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC: $81,500 · Health+4 more: $2,100 · Health
Other$2,072,303Human Services$1,081,889Arts & Culture$661,755Crime & Legal$365,700Youth Development$308,992Food & Nutrition$275,050Health$184,100

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 budgetCHARITABLE UNION: $445,984 over 8y, 3.6% of budgetMUSIC CENTER OF SOUTH CENTRAL MI: $380,370 over 8y, 12% of budgetMichigan Advocacy Program: $349,500 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetNEW LEVEL SPORTS: $292,992 over 8y, 17% of budgetSPROUT URBAN FARMS INC: $275,050 over 7y, 44% of budgetSAFE PLACE: $206,865 over 8y, 4.1% of budgetLEILA ARBORETUM SOCIETY INC: $179,577 over 8y, 10% of budgetVOCES: $143,000 over 7y, 5.8% of budgetNONPROFIT NETWORK: $131,250 over 6y, 5.6% of budgetWHAT A DO THEATRE: $106,089 over 5y, 30% of budgetBronson Health Foundation: $100,500 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetNORTHERN GREAT LAKES INITIATIVES: $100,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBURMESE AMERICAN INITIATIVE INC: $98,500 over 4y, 4.7% of budgetSPECIALIZED LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC: $81,500 over 7y, 2.0% of budgetOLIVET COLLEGE: $57,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL: $55,000 over 6y, 10% of budgetKINGMAN MUSEUM INC: $36,700 over 5y, 9.6% of budgetDROP-IN SELF HELP CENTER INC: $34,419 over 6y, 2.1% of budgetBinder Park Zoological Society Inc: $29,500 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetLOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION: $26,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBLUE LAKE FINE ARTS CAMP: $20,012 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetGeneration E Institute: $16,250 over 2y, 7.8% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS HEART OF MICHIGAN: $16,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCALHOUN COUNTY GUARDIAN DBA GUARDIAN FIN: $15,500 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetBATTLE CREEK UNLIMITED INC: $14,660 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetBrass Band of Battle Creek: $14,550 over 8y, 1.4% of budgetY-CENTER OF BATTLE CREEK: $12,550 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWILLARD LIBRARY: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKAMBLY LIVING CENTER: $7,250 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetFOSTER ADOPTIVE FAMILY RESOURCE: $6,331 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetINTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $5,534 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF SOUTH CENTRAL MI: $5,200 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR BEHAVIORAL RESOURCES: $4,925 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCRESCENDO ACADEMY OF MUSIC: $4,806 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetTHE ARC OF CALHOUN COUNTY: $3,679 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTH MICHIGAN FOOD BANK: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER BATTLE CREEK ICE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION: $2,000 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetCalhoun Christian School: $1,920 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN INC: $1,800 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $1,600 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetBATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSherman Lake YMCA Outdoor Center: $1,415 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BARN THEATRE SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED THEATRE TRAINING: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $800 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCIR INC: $750 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHAVEN INC: $700 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGRACE HEALTH INC: $650 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetFamily & Children's Services of Mid-Michigan Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 CHARITABLE UNION ↗
  • Who funds MUSIC CENTER OF SOUTH CENTRAL MI ↗
  • Who funds Michigan Advocacy Program ↗
  • Who funds NEW LEVEL SPORTS ↗
  • Who funds SPROUT URBAN FARMS INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ROBERT B MILLER COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds SAFE PLACE ↗
  • Who funds LEILA ARBORETUM SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds VOCES ↗
  • Who funds NONPROFIT NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds WHAT A DO THEATRE ↗
  • Who funds Bronson Health Foundation ↗
  • Who funds NORTHERN GREAT LAKES INITIATIVES ↗
  • Who funds BURMESE AMERICAN INITIATIVE INC ↗
  • Who funds SPECIALIZED LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds OLIVET COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds KINGMAN MUSEUM INC ↗
  • Who funds DROP-IN SELF HELP CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Binder Park Zoological Society Inc ↗
  • Who funds LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION ↗

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.

Battle Creek Communit…WK Kellogg FoundationUnited Way of South C…Kalamazoo Community F…Guido a Binda and Eli…Feldpausch FoundationConsumers Energy Foun…Santo Maria Frank & J…Suzanne Upjohn Delano…Tyler-Little Family F…Harold and Grace Upjo…Battle Creek Unlimite…
Battle Creek Community FoundationMI95.5× affinity44 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Battle Creek Community Foundation · WK Kellogg Foundation · United Way of South Central Michigan · Kalamazoo Community Foundation · Guido a Binda and Elizabeth H Binda Foundation · Feldpausch Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · Santo Maria Frank & John Zanetti Foundation · Suzanne Upjohn Delano Parish Foundation · Tyler-Little Family Foundation · Harold and Grace Upjohn Foundation · Battle Creek Unlimited 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 Miller Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Miller Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%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
    22report 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 Miller Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Miller 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 166 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 Miller’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