· Private foundation
The Milo Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $600 |
| MALI WELLNESS FOUNDATION | $500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $500 |
| RAFIKI OUTREACH | $500 |
| OPERATION KIDS | $500 |
| CAREN WINTERS | $500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $400 |
| Individual grant recipient | $330 |
| Individual grant recipient | $300 |
| Individual grant recipient | $210 |
| AEM | $200 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50 |
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 (FY22–23, $715) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 56% 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 +156% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k 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
- IGIndividual grant recipient5× · 2017–2022 · $2k
- RORafiki Outreach2× · 2023–2024 · $1k
- AAEM2× · 2023–2024 · $450
Funded once
- GFGILL FAMILYone grant, 2017 · $840
- BCBONNEVILLE CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $800
- NPNAZARENE PROJECTone grant, 2022 · $700
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.
We serve needy families in Mali who find themselves in medical crisis. Since our founding in 2008, we have helped hundreds of patients access life saving medical care, by paying for medicines, medical tests, and surgeries. We treat complex…
Support rural areas in morocco
Improve the well-being of under-resourced communities through partnerships promoting health and education. Our initiatives focus on providing food and toiletries for homeless communities and for supporting the needs of orphaned and…
To Provide clean water to communities in Malawi, Africa
Exposed to the water crisis in rural Africa during the adoption of a child, we initiate action through educational outreach and events that fund sustainable clean water sources or projects providing educational/health benefits for rural…
Provide access to clean water in Malawi, Africa. Accomplished by drilling boreholes, repairing pumps, installing solar systems for drinking and irrigation, provide training, menstrual hygiene education, distribution of essential supplies…
A is for Africa is an educational foundation focusing education and health among the Maasai people of Tanzania East Africa. Our primary work involves providing educational support to the local government schools in the way of a school…
AFF is an organization founded in 1995 to encourage and promote cross-cultural friendship and goodwill in developing nations. We do this through the development and funding of programs that address pressing human need for clean water…
To provide clean drinking water and basic medical care to the underpriviledged in Cameroon.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Medecins Sans Frontieres Usa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Bonneville Charitable Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 70 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 Rafiki Outreach ↗
- Who funds BONNEVILLE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Mali Wellness Foundation ↗
- Who funds Care for Life Inc ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds OK Foundation ↗
- Who funds HEARTS AND HANDS FOR HUMANITY ↗
- Who funds ONE SIMPLE WISH INC ↗
- Who funds HONOR FLIGHT INC ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
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: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 The Milo 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.
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.