Skip to content
The Carter Center Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Carter Center Inc

Mission description the carter center is guided by the principles of our founders, jimmy and rosalynn carter.

$8.6M
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
9
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2017 to 2024.

Arts & Culture$1.0MPublic Benefit$728kYouth Development$565kInternational$407kHealth$350kScience & Tech$210kCivil Rights$181kHuman Services$60kOther$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $772,216, the rows itemized in this filing. The $8,620,643 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $7,848,427 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 · FY2024

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $141k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $631k
$41,216
Median grant
9
States reached
$1.2B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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, $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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LATIN AMERICAN ASSOC: $10k → 13%ROSALYNN CARTER INSTITUTE: $40k → 22%ROSALYNN CARTER INST FOR CAREGI: $20k → 22%VOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN: $60k → 13%VOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN: $60k → 13%Voices for Georgia's Children: $32k → 13%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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
NV
SD
MD
AZ
NM
NC
DC
GA

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.

Sub-Saharan Africa$5.6M · 72% · 92 grants

Stated purpose: 1 · 3 · 4

South America$1.4M · 18% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: 2 · 6 · 53

East Asia and the Pacific$255k · 3% · 7 grants

Stated purpose: 11 · 19 · 38

Middle East and North Africa$215k · 3% · 1 grant · 3 people

Stated purpose: 7 · JOURNALISM FELLOWSHIPS

Cent. Amer./carib.$147k · 2% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: 8 · 81

South Asia$79k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: 12

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$57k · 1% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: 43 · 50 · 109

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. 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.0M · 8 repeat orgs$591k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +46% since the first grant, against +32% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
7

Total granted

$3.0M
$140k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+32%

Still filing today

88%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $451k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsHuman ServicesEducationSocial ScienceYouth DevelopmentInternationalOther
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

  • RC
    ROOT CHANGE INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $225k · revenue +13%
  • GA
    GEORGIA APPLESEED INC
    4× · 2019–2022 · $178k · revenue +147%
  • VF
    VOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $152k · revenue +65%

Funded once

  • CF
    CENTER FOR GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -77%
  • AA
    ACLED ANALYSIS INCORPORATEDgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue +154%
  • JO
    JOURNAL OF FEMINIST STUDIES IN RELIGION INC
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +14%
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
America Votes

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.

Community Improvement
2
The Equal Voting Rights Institute

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…

Crime & Legal
3
Civica Initiatives

Empower people and strengthen democratic institutions

Community Improvement
4
The Center for Election Innovation & Research

CEIR seeks to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation while ensuring election integrity and security.

Civil Rights
5
Minnesota Voice

Minnesota Voice is a collaboration of organizations working toward permanent change in social, racial, and economic justice by increasing civic engagement and voter participation across the state.

Public Benefit
6
Common Cause

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,…

—
7
Bold Impact

Bold Impact is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting a democracy where all communities get to thrive.

Arts & Culture
8
Civicus World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Civicus is a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society throughout the world.

Youth Development
9
Colorofchangeorg

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…

—
10
The International Institute On Race Equality and Human Rights

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…

International
11
Accountability Counsel

Accountability Counsel amplifies the voices of communities around the world to protect their rights and environment. As experts in strategies to demand justice, we work alongside those whose rights, livelihoods, and environment are under…

Environment
12
Center for Competitive Democracy

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…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Artistic Activism Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

20 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. 20 of the 22 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
10/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EMORY UNIVERSITY: $1,671,472 · OtherEMORY UNIVERSITYTeam Democracy Action: $200,000 · OtherTeam Democracy Action+8 more: $248,856 · Other+8 moreBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ALBANY INC: $565,470 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS…GEORGIA APPLESEED INC: $177,963 · Civil RightsGEORGIA AP…ELECTION REFORMERS NETWORK INC: $120,000 · Civil RightsELECTION R…Arizona Native Vote: $20,000 · Civil RightsArizona Na…+1 more: $9,000 · Civil RightsROOT CHANGE INC: $225,000 · EmploymentVOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC: $152,000 · Human ServicesROSALYNN CARTER INSTITUTE FOR CAREGIVERS: $60,000 · Human ServicesLATIN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: $9,500 · Human ServicesRESOURCE IMPACT: $51,000 · EducationGEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $6,291 · EducationACLED ANALYSIS INCORPORATED: $30,000 · International
Other$2,120,328Youth Development$565,470Civil Rights$326,963Employment$225,000Human Services$221,500Education$57,291International$30,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ALBANY INC: $565,470 over 4y, 6.6% of budgetROOT CHANGE INC: $225,000 over 2y, 7.3% of budgetGEORGIA APPLESEED INC: $177,963 over 4y, 6.5% of budgetVOICES FOR GEORGIA'S CHILDREN INC: $152,000 over 3y, 3.2% of budgetELECTION REFORMERS NETWORK INC: $120,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetROSALYNN CARTER INSTITUTE FOR CAREGIVERS: $60,000 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetNEW MEXICO FIRST: $52,080 over 2y, 14% of budgetMICHIGAN DISABILITY RIGHTS COALITION: $51,776 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetRESOURCE IMPACT: $51,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCENTER FOR GLOBAL HEALTH INNOVATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetACLED ANALYSIS INCORPORATED: $30,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetArizona Native Vote: $20,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetReturn Strong: $20,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetCENTRO ROMERO: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetLATIN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: $9,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCENTER FOR ARTISTIC ACTIVISM INC: $9,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetGEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $6,291 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Georgia Power Foundat…Annie E Casey Foundat…Silicon Valley Commun…Donor Advised Charita…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Georgia Power Foundation IncGA14.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Carter Center Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Carter Center Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 22 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Carter Center’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