Skip to content
Center for Transforming Communities at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Center for Transforming Communities

The organization fosters community change through congregations that re- engage their communities in collaborative approaches.

$47k
Granted FY2021
4
Grants FY2021
1
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2021.

Education$14kArts & Culture$14kCommunity Improvement$14kEmployment$8kYouth Development$7k
02FY2021 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $27,452, the rows itemized in this filing. The $47,415 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $19,963 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$7,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CARPENTER ART GARDEN$7,500
THE COLLECTIVE$7,000
BLUES CITY CULTURAL CENTER$6,945
JUICE ORANGE MOUND$6,007
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–21) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 17%. 86% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 17%LANDMARK TRAINING DEVELOPMENT CO: $8k → 17%YOUNG ACTORS GUILD INC: $7k → 10%JUICE ORANGE MOUND: $6k → 17%BROAD AVENUE COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $8k → 17%THE COLLECTIVE: $7k → 17%CARPENTER ART GARDEN: $8k → 17%JUNIOR LEAGUE OF MEMPHIS: $7k → 17%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 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 Black Literacy and Arts Collaborative Project
—
2
Black Urban Farmers Association
Food & Nutrition
3
Black Music Entrepreneurship Incubator

Musical Education and Training

—
4
Nashville Blues and Roots Alliance
Arts & Culture
5
Black and Jewish Leaders of Tomorrow

Tbd

Arts & Culture
6
Bronzeville Center for the Arts Inc
Arts & Culture
7
Memphis Slim Collaboratory Inc
Arts & Culture
8
Black Seeds

prove asset to organic food

Food & Nutrition
9
Vineyard Arts Project Limited

Vineyard Arts Project is an incubator for the creation of new work in dance and theater. An artistic residency space located on the beautiful island of Marthas Vineyard VAP provides visiting artists the necessary time accommodation and…

Arts & Culture
10
Akron Black Artist Guild

Exclusively for charitable, religious, educational

Arts & Culture
11
The Black Collaborative Inc
Community Improvement
12
Jay N Darling Legacy Center

Expanding the arts

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Carpenter Art Garden; the most unlike its peers is Junior League of Memphis. 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

8 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CARPENTER ART GARDEN: $7,500 · EducationCARPENTER ART GARDENLANDMARK TRAINING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: $7,500 · EducationLANDMARK TRAINING DEVELOPMENT COMPANYYOUNG ACTORS GUILD INC: $6,721 · EducationYOUNG ACTORS GUILD INCBroad Avenue Community and Development Corporation: $7,500 · Community ImprovementBroad Avenue Community and De…Junior League of Memphis: $7,357 · Community ImprovementJunior League of MemphisTHE COLLECTIVE THE CLTV INC: $7,000 · OtherTHE COLLECTIVE THE CLTV INCBLUES CITY CULTURAL CENTER INC: $6,945 · OtherBLUES CITY CULTURAL CENTER …JUICE ORANGE MOUND: $6,007 · Public BenefitJUICE ORANGE…
Education$21,721Community Improvement$14,857Other$13,945Public Benefit$6,007

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCARPENTER ART GARDEN: $7,500 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetLANDMARK TRAINING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: $7,500 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetJunior League of Memphis: $7,357 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE COLLECTIVE THE CLTV INC: $7,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetBLUES CITY CULTURAL CENTER INC: $6,945 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetYOUNG ACTORS GUILD INC: $6,721 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetJUICE ORANGE MOUND: $6,007 over 1y, 4.6% 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.

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.

Community Foundation …ArtsmemphisAmazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation of Greater Memphis IncTN19.4× affinity7 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Greater Memphis Inc · Artsmemphis · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Center for Transforming Communities funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Center for Transforming Communities. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    4report 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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Center for Transforming Communities?

    Find your warmest path to Center for Transforming Communities 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 8 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2021, released 2021. 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 FY2021, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Center for Transforming Communities’ 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