Skip to content
The Dr Dane & Mary Louise Miller Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

The Dr Dane & Mary Louise Miller Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
51
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$125k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$1.7MHuman Services$1.5MHealth$661kHousing & Shelter$400kPublic Benefit$350kArts & Culture$205kYouth Development$188kAnimals$185kOther$0
02FY2024 · 51 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k23 grants · $85k
  • $10k–50k20 grants · $329k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $682k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WOMEN'S CARE CENTER FOUNDATION$125,000
PURDUE UNIVERSITY$120,000
RILEY CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION$100,000
TRINE UNIVERSITY$97,059
JOE'S KIDS INC$75,000
AMERICAN RED CROSS$65,000
THE CATHERINE PEACHEY FUND$50,000
CARDINAL SERVICES$50,000
ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE$27,500
HEARTLINE PREGNANCY CENTER$25,000
COMBINED COMMUNITY SERVICES$25,000
BAKERS YOUTH CLUB$25,000
CANCER SERVICE WEST$25,000
Individual grant recipient$22,500
KOSCIUSKO COMMUNITY SENIOR SERVICES$20,000
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 (FY20–24, $990k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 76% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%WOMEN'S CARE CENTER FOUNDATION: $200k → 13%WOMEN'S CARE CENTER FOUNDATION: $175k → 13%WOMEN'S CARE CENTER FOUNDATION: $150k → 13%WOMEN'S CARE CENTER FOUNDATION: $125k → 13%WOMEN'S CARE CENTER FOUNDATION: $100k → 13%BOOMERANG BACKPACKS: $5k → 12%LIFELINE YOUTH & FAMILY SVC: $10k → 12%LIFELINE YOUTH & FAMILY SVC: $10k → 12%LOST SPARROWS: $5k → 11%BOOMERANG BACKPACKS: $5k → 12%LOST SPARROWS: $3k → 11%LOST SPARROWS: $3k → 11%COMBINED COMMUNITY SERVICES: $75k → 11%COMBINED COMMUNITY SERVICES: $75k → 11%COMBINED COMMUNITY SERVICES: $25k → 11%COMBINED COMMUNITY SERVICES: $25k → 11%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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.0M · 52 repeat orgs$818k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +29% since the first grant, against +3% for those funded once.

52 repeat relationships: 40 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

52
28

Total granted

$5.0M
$739k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+3%

Still filing today

56%
32%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $80k 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 ServicesEducationHealthArts & CultureAnimalsRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • SJ
    ST JOSEPH THE PROTECTOR FDN INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $750k · revenue +32%
  • GS
    Grace Schools
    5× · 2020–2024 · $585k · revenue +102%
  • TU
    Trine University
    5× · 2020–2024 · $372k · revenue +106%

Funded once

  • TO
    TOWN OF WINONA LAKE
    one grant, 2020 · $350k
  • CC
    COMBINE COMMUNITY SERVICES
    one grant, 2020 · $75k
  • LE
    LINCOLN ELEMENTARY
    one grant, 2023 · $75k
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
Indiana Dream Center Inc

To provide a christ centered shelter to meet basic needs of housing, clothing, food, emotional and spirtitual needs.

Housing & Shelter
2
Indiana Center for Prevention of Youth Abuse and Suicide

Child advocacy organization that focuses on the prevention of child sexual abuse and youth suicide.

Youth Development
3
Wabash County Business Alliance Inc

Together, growing a prosperous wabash county.

—
4
Michiana Biblical Counseling Center Inc

Michiana Biblical Counseling Center exists to provide Biblical counseling to those in need and training to those who seek to be equipped to aid others in becoming more Christ-Like for the Glory of God.

Health
5
Indiana Agribusiness Council Inc

An agribusiness network advocate, representing members' interests within all levels of government and keeping members informed of the latest industry trends and news.

—
6
Bucksport Area Child Care Center

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

Human Services
7
Crosswinds Inc

The mission statement of the organization is changing hearts and bringing hope to individuals, families, and communities.

Human Services
8
Waycross Inc

Provides conference center and camping facilities for religious, educational and charitable groups in central and southern indiana.

Recreation & Sports
9
Indiana County Humane Society

To provide and to promote humane treatment toward animals

Animals
10
Webster City Day Care

Child day care center

—
11
Taylor University Broadcasting Inc

The Mission of WBCL is to communicate God's redemptive love, grace, and truth through captivating media.

Education
12
Kosciusko Development Land Trust Inc

Serving the needs of the residents of kosciusko county, indiana and surrounding areas by promoting new economic development and redevelopment.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lifeline Youth & Family Services Inc; the most unlike its peers is World Compassion Network Inc. 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

41 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. 41 of the 91 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)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
40/41
Grantees still filing
27/41
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $533,060 · OtherTRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITYTOWN OF WINONA LAKE: $350,000 · OtherTOWN OF WINONA LAKECARDINAL SERVICES: $325,000 · OtherCARDINAL SERVICESRILEY CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION: $160,000 · OtherRILEY CHILDREN'S FOUNDATIONAMERICAN RED CROSS: $135,000 · OtherANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $117,175 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $97,500 · Other+57 more: $1,147,907 · Other+57 moreST JOSEPH THE PROTECTOR FDN INC: $750,000 · Human ServicesST JOSEPH THE PROTECT…COMBINED COMMUNITY SERVICES: $200,000 · Human ServicesCOMBINED COMMUNITY SE…KOSCIUSKO COUNTY SHELTER FOR ABUSE INC: $86,600 · Human ServicesKOSCIUSKO COUNTY SHEL…+5 more: $61,500 · Human Services+5 moreGrace Schools: $585,000 · EducationGrace SchoolsTrine University: $372,059 · EducationTrine University+5 more: $83,150 · Education+5 moreJoe's Kids Inc: $172,500 · HealthJoe's Kid…CATHERINE PEACHEY FUND INC: $120,000 · HealthCATHERINE…HEARTLINE PREGNANCY CENTER INC: $105,000 · HealthHEARTLINE…BELOVED NOT FORGOTTEN INC: $30,000 · HealthBELOVED N…MAGICAL MEADOWS INC: $26,500 · HealthMAGICAL M…+1 more: $10,000 · HealthSCIENCE CENTRAL INC: $120,000 · Arts & CultureWAGON WHEEL THEATRE INC: $10,000 · Arts & CultureVALPARAISO CREATIVE COUNCIL INC: $8,000 · Arts & CultureBAKER YOUTH CLUB: $100,000 · Youth DevelopmentWARSAW AQUATIC CLUB INC: $5,900 · Youth DevelopmentFELLOWSHIP MISSIONS INC: $60,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$2,865,642Human Services$1,098,100Education$1,040,209Health$464,000Arts & Culture$138,000Youth Development$105,900Housing & Shelter$60,000

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 budgetST JOSEPH THE PROTECTOR FDN INC: $750,000 over 5y, 3.5% of budgetGrace Schools: $585,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetTrine University: $372,059 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetCOMBINED COMMUNITY SERVICES: $200,000 over 4y, 8.0% of budgetJoe's Kids Inc: $172,500 over 5y, 2.3% of budgetSCIENCE CENTRAL INC: $120,000 over 5y, 2.1% of budgetCATHERINE PEACHEY FUND INC: $120,000 over 4y, 6.2% of budgetANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $117,175 over 3y, 11% of budgetHEARTLINE PREGNANCY CENTER INC: $105,000 over 5y, 4.3% of budgetBAKER YOUTH CLUB: $100,000 over 5y, 3.6% of budgetKOSCIUSKO COUNTY SHELTER FOR ABUSE INC: $86,600 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetFELLOWSHIP MISSIONS INC: $60,000 over 4y, 2.2% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA: $50,000 over 5y, 2.9% of budgetRose-Hulman Institute of Technology: $40,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNEW HOPE PET RESCUE INC: $40,000 over 5y, 14% of budgetButler University: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetINDIANA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNORTH WEBSTER COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $30,000 over 2y, 8.6% of budgetWARSAW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $30,000 over 5y, 5.7% of budgetBELOVED NOT FORGOTTEN INC: $30,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetMAGICAL MEADOWS INC: $26,500 over 4y, 5.4% of budgetYOUNG TIGER FOOTBALL INC: $21,974 over 5y, 17% of budgetLifeline Youth & Family Services Inc: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWorld Compassion Network Inc: $11,500 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetBOOMERANG BACKPACKS INC: $10,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetINDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOPE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetWAGON WHEEL THEATRE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetLOST SPARROWS INC: $10,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetVALPARAISO CREATIVE COUNCIL INC: $8,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetOPERATION READ INC: $7,500 over 1y, 6.9% of budgetWARSAW AQUATIC CLUB INC: $5,900 over 4y, 3.6% of budgetLAKELAND CHRISTIAN ACADEMY ASSOCIATION INC: $5,650 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKOSCIUSKO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $5,500 over 4y, 2.0% of budgetCITY COUNTY ATHLETIC COMPLEX INC: $4,500 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetKCV CYCLING CLUB INC: $3,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetLIFETOUCH MINISTRIES INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPROFESSIONAL ANIMAL RETIREMENT CENTER INC: $1,000 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 ST JOSEPH THE PROTECTOR FDN INC ↗
  • Who funds Grace Schools ↗
  • Who funds Trine University ↗
  • Who funds COMBINED COMMUNITY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds Joe's Kids Inc ↗
  • Who funds SCIENCE CENTRAL INC ↗
  • Who funds CATHERINE PEACHEY FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds HEARTLINE PREGNANCY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds BAKER YOUTH CLUB ↗
  • Who funds KOSCIUSKO COUNTY SHELTER FOR ABUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds FELLOWSHIP MISSIONS INC ↗
  • Who funds BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA ↗
  • Who funds Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology ↗
  • Who funds NEW HOPE PET RESCUE INC ↗
  • Who funds Butler University ↗
  • Who funds INDIANA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTH WEBSTER COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds WARSAW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds BELOVED NOT FORGOTTEN INC ↗
  • Who funds MAGICAL MEADOWS INC ↗

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.

Kosciusko County Comm…Kosciusko 21st Centur…Esther Pfleiderer Cha…Hand Family Foundatio…Terry L and Sandra K …United Way of Koscius…Zimmer Biomet Foundat…Dekko Foundation IncNisource Charitable F…Bibler Family Charita…RJ Miller Family Foun…The James Foundation …
Kosciusko County Community Foundation IncIN61.3× affinity27 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Kosciusko County Community Foundation Inc · Kosciusko 21st Century Foundation Inc Aka K21 Health Foundation · Esther Pfleiderer Charitable Trust Xxx-Xx-Xxxx · Hand Family Foundation Inc · Terry L and Sandra K Tucker Family Foundation Trust · United Way of Kosciusko County Inc · Zimmer Biomet Foundation Inc · Dekko Foundation Inc · Nisource Charitable Foundation · Bibler Family Charitable Trust Xxx-Xx-Xxxx · RJ Miller Family Foundation Inc · The James 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 The Dr Dane & Mary Louise Miller Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Dr Dane & Mary Louise Miller Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    15report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 91 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 Dr Dane & Mary Louise 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