Skip to content
Rotary International Rotary Club of Carroll Creek Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Rotary International Rotary Club of Carroll Creek Inc

To incorporate the purposes of rotary international in our club which includes humanitarian service, encouragement of high ethical standards in all vocations and build goodwill and peace in the world.

$214k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
—
States reached
$78k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02Its granteesRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

International$99kCommunity Improvement$78kFood & Nutrition$14kReligion$13kHousing & Shelter$12kHuman Services$7k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $133,525, the rows itemized in this filing. The $213,661 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $80,136 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.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $43k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $78k
$15,775
Median grant
—
States reached
$656k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DOWNTOWN FREDERICK PARTNERSHIP INC$77,500
HOPE IN SOUTH AFRICA$27,250
THE ROTARY FOUNDATION$15,775
BEYOND SHELTER FREDERICK INC$7,000
STUDENT HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP OF FREDERICK COUNTY$6,000
02Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$123k · 5 repeat orgs$91k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
2

Total granted

$123k
$14k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+40%

Still filing today

80%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24’25
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementHealthReligionInternationalOther
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

  • HI
    Hope In South Africa Inc
    3× · 2023–2025 · $60k · revenue -8% · 36% of their budget
  • TR
    THE ROTARY FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2025 · $25k
  • BLESSINGS IN A BACKPACK INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $14k · revenue +4%

Funded once

  • HC
    Honduras Compassion Partners Incgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $7k · revenue +40%
  • BF
    Bikes for the World Inc
    one grant, 2024 · $7k · revenue -18%
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.

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
Village Bicycle Project Inc

To provide bicycles as sustainable transportation for people who do not have reliable or affordable access to transportation.

Human Services
2
Feeding Hungry Children International

Provide food, shelter, and medical assistance for children around the world.

—
3
Bridging Initiatives International

Provide holistic and integrated service that address the diverse needs of vulnerable individuals and families experiencing instability as the result of domestic violence and /or homelessness.

Human Services
4
Be Hope International
Religion
5
Partnership for Housing Affordability

In response to housing needs in our communities, we champion policies, developments, and programs for quality affordable housing in the Richmond region.

Education
6
Blacksburg Refugee Partnership Inc

Support for families who have come to the United States to escape their war-torn countries.

Human Services
7
Foundation for Women

Eliminating global poverty through microfinance.

Philanthropy
8
Strategies for International Development

Strategies for International Development (SID) develops, applies, and promotes better methods for eradicating rural poverty. We help small farmers make the transition from subsistence to successful commercial farming. We carryout programs…

International
9
Solar Cookers International

The mission of Solar Cookers International is to improve human health, economic well-being, womens empowerment, and the environment by promoting climate-friendly solar cooking for vulnerable populations worldwide.

Environment
10
Microfinance Opportunities
Education
11
The Mikes Bikes Foundation

To assist in the development of an affordable and equitable bicycle infrastructure and support in developing nations where the bicycle can make an improvement in the general quality of life; To provide financing and mentoring to start-up…

International
12
Habitat for Humanity International

Building homes for below poverty level individuals

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Beyond Shelter Frederick Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hope in South Africa Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the 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. 8 of the 9 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DOWNTOWN FREDERICK PARTNERSHIP INC: $77,500 · Community ImprovementDOWNTOWN FREDERICK PARTNERSHIP INCHope In South Africa Inc: $60,124 · HealthHope In South Africa IncBLESSINGS IN A BACKPACK INC: $13,500 · Human ServicesBLESSINGS IN A B…STUDENT HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP OF FREDERICK COUNTYINC: $12,000 · Human ServicesSTUDENT HOMELESS…Bikes for the World Inc: $6,812 · Human ServicesBikes for the Wo…THE ROTARY FOUNDATION: $24,775 · OtherTHE ROTARY F…Honduras Compassion Partners Inc: $6,812 · InternationalKIVA MICROFUNDS: $6,812 · InternationalBEYOND SHELTER FREDERICK INC: $12,500 · Religion
Community Improvement$77,500Health$60,124Human Services$32,312Other$24,775International$13,624Religion$12,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDOWNTOWN FREDERICK PARTNERSHIP INC: $77,500 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetHope In South Africa Inc: $60,124 over 3y, 36% of budgetBLESSINGS IN A BACKPACK INC: $13,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBEYOND SHELTER FREDERICK INC: $12,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetSTUDENT HOMELESSNESS INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP OF FREDERICK COUNTYINC: $12,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetHonduras Compassion Partners Inc: $6,812 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetKIVA MICROFUNDS: $6,812 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBikes for the World Inc: $6,812 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Rotary International Rotary Club of Carroll Creek Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rotary International Rotary Club of Carroll Creek Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Downtown Frederick Partnership Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
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 9 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Rotary International Rotary Club of Carroll Creek’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