· Private foundation
Robert Miller & Catherine Miller Charitable Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 40% of ROBERT MILLER & CATHERINE MILLER CHARITABLE FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k34 grants · $90k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FOOD BANK OF CONTRA COSTA & SOLANO | $10,000 |
| EARTH JUSTICE | $10,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF OREGON (ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES) | $10,000 |
| IMMIGRATION INSTITUTE OF THE BAY AREA | $7,500 |
| NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER | $7,500 |
| ROSSMOOR FUND | $6,500 |
| LIFE LEARNING ACADEMY | $5,000 |
| TRINITY CENTER | $5,000 |
| COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN | $5,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD | $5,000 |
| WIDER CIRCLE | $4,000 |
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 (FY18–25, $71k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 38% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +73% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
52 repeat relationships — 33 still active in FY2025, 19 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k 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
EARTHJUSTICE9× · 2017–2025 · $91k · revenue +82%- IRInternational Rescue Committee INC7× · 2017–2025 · $63k · revenue +81%
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER9× · 2017–2025 · $50k · revenue +79%
Funded once
- URUC REGENTSone grant, 2017 · $10k
- HFHISPANIC FEDERATION (PUERTO RICO RELIEF)one grant, 2017 · $10k
- EBEAST BAY FEED ERone grant, 2020 · $5k
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.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Marin humane transforms lives through exceptional animal care, humane education, and advocacy. every day, marin humane inspires compassion and positive relationships between people and animals.
United Food Bank unites communities to alleviate hunger.
We Dont Waste increases food access and protects the planet by rescuing and repurposing food, while educating and advocating to increase food security and decrease food waste.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
In 2024, Inner City Law Center, ICLC, served over 3,400 people, helping vulnerable Angelenos to remain in their homes and recover nearly $20.5 million in financial benefits.
Animal outlook is a national animal protection organization working to end the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies, including investigations, legal advocacy, corporate and food system reform, and vegan outreach.
Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
California Coastkeeper Alliance unites Waterkeeper programs statewide to fight for swimmable, fishable, and drinkable waters for all Californians.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Open City Advocates and the most unlike its peers is The Trinity Center Corporation. 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 31 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
51 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. 51 of the 67 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 EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK OF CONTRA COSTA AND SOLANO ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS SECRETARIAT ↗
- Who funds Life Learning Academy ↗
- Who funds A WIDER CIRCLE INC ↗
- Who funds UPPER VALLEY HAVEN ↗
- Who funds OAKLAND PROMISE ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL NETWORK OF ABORTION FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds THE DC CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds Rossmoor Fund ↗
- Who funds WILLING HANDS ENTERPRISES INC ↗
- Who funds LISTEN Lebanon in Service to Each Neighbor ↗
- Who funds Save The Bay ↗
- Who funds REFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds IMMIGRATION INSTITUTE OF THE BAY AREA ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON TENNIS & EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE MILO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MID-ATLANTIC INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds EAST BAY SPCA ↗
- Who funds WESTCOAST CHILDREN'S CLINIC ↗
- Who funds OPEN CITY ADVOCATES ↗
- Who funds MARTHA'S TABLE INC ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE ↗
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: East Bay Community Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · The Duffield Family Foundation Dba Maddie's Fund · New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco the Peninsula Marin & Sonoma · Emily Landecker Foundation Inc · Lubrano Family Charitable Foundation Emmett Lyne Trustee C/O Rich May PC · Greater Washington Community Foundation · Greater Good Charities · The Yelp Foundation · Shell USA Company Foundation · Impactassetsinc
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 Robert Miller & Catherine Miller Charitable Foundation 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.
- Upper Valley Haven — 38% of income from government
- Willing Hands Enterprises Inc — 17% of income from government
- A Wider Circle Inc — 6% of income from government
- Wesleyan University — 1% 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 Robert Miller & Catherine Miller Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Robert Miller & Catherine Miller Charitable 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.