· Public charity
The Carter Center Inc
Mission description the carter center is guided by the principles of our founders, jimmy and rosalynn carter.
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.
The 11 grants below total $772,216 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $8,620,643 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $7,848,427 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k6 grants · $141k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $631k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEAM DEMOCRACY ACTION | $200,000 |
| ROOT CHANGE | $150,000 |
| ELECTIONS REFORMERS NETWORK | $120,000 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ALBANY | $110,000 |
| RESOURCE IMPACT | $51,000 |
| DETROIT DISABILITY POWER | $41,216 |
| WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES | $20,000 |
| RETURN STRONG | $20,000 |
| ARIZONA NATIVE VOTE | $20,000 |
| HE SAPA VOTERS COUNCIL | $20,000 |
| ROSALYNN CARTER INST FOR CAREGI | $20,000 |
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 (FY20–24, $222k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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
Grants abroad, by region — $7.8M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 7 regions, $7.8M to organizations and $15k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: 1 · 3 · 4
Stated purpose: 2 · 6 · 53
Stated purpose: 11 · 19 · 38
Stated purpose: 7 · JOURNALISM FELLOWSHIPS
Stated purpose: 8 · 81
Stated purpose: 12
Stated purpose: 43 · 50 · 109
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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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 +46% since the first grant, against +32% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 7 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, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $451k 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
- RCROOT CHANGE INC2× · 2023–2024 · $225k · revenue +13%
- GAGEORGIA APPLESEED INC4× · 2019–2022 · $178k · revenue +147%
- VFVOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC3× · 2020–2022 · $152k · revenue +65%
Funded once
- CFCENTER FOR GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATIONone grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -77%
- AAACLED ANALYSIS INCORPORATEDgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue +154%
- JOJOURNAL OF FEMINIST STUDIES IN RELIGION INCone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +14%
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.
To protect and, where necessary, restore the primacy of all americans shared civil rights. the acr project exists to systematically sponsor litigation, file administrative complaints, participate in rulemaking, and educate both government…
CEIR seeks to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation while ensuring election integrity and security.
Civicus is a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society throughout the world.
Public agenda strengthens american democracy by connecting research to action enabling people and institutions to pursue changes that make a difference. we amplify the voices of americans and help communities discover and build on common…
The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.
The international institute on race, equality and human rights contributes to the promotion and defense of human rights, through training, technical assistance, advocacy, and strategic litigation conducted at the regional and international…
The center works to strengthen american democracy by increasing electoral competition by identifying and eliminating barriers to political participation in an effort to secure free, open and competitive elections by fostering active civic…
Vote.org's primary purpose is to build web-based technologies that remove barriers to voting and increase vote turnout.
Colorofchange.org works to strengthen the voice of black americans and increase the level of accountability and responsiveness of elected officials to underrepresented black constituencies using the internet as a lobbying and…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
The center for justice innovation is a non-profit organization that works to create a fair, effective, and humane justice system and build strong, thriving communities.
With offices in washington d.c. and 25 states and 1.5 million supporters and activists, common cause works to advance democracy reforms at federal, state, and local levels, through drafting model legislation, lobbying, public engagement,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Global Health Innovation and the most unlike its peers is Election Reformers 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.
20 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. 20 of the 22 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 BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ALBANY INC ↗
- Who funds ROOT CHANGE INC ↗
- Who funds Team Democracy Action ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA APPLESEED INC ↗
- Who funds VOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds ELECTION REFORMERS NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds ROSALYNN CARTER INSTITUTE FOR CAREGIVERS ↗
- Who funds NEW MEXICO FIRST ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN DISABILITY RIGHTS COALITION ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE IMPACT ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION ↗
- Who funds ACLED ANALYSIS INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds JOURNAL OF FEMINIST STUDIES IN RELIGION INC ↗
- Who funds Return Strong ↗
- Who funds Arizona Native Vote ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC ↗
- Who funds CENTRO ROMERO ↗
- Who funds LATIN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR ARTISTIC ACTIVISM INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC ↗
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: Georgia Power Foundation Inc · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Carter Center Inc 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.