· Private foundation
The Chris Tucker 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.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k9 grants · $39k
- $10k–50k13 grants · $210k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NEW LIFE TABERNACLE | $25,000 |
| ROOTER PLUS FRO LOUISE KELLEY | $22,639 |
| INT'L DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN | $22,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $20,000 |
| MOREHOUSE COLLEGEGOLF SCHOLARSHIPS | $20,000 |
| MOTHERLESS DAUGHTERS | $20,000 |
| ADKINS IRREVOCABLE TRUST | $20,000 |
| JAMAICA PROJECT USA | $10,800 |
| D TERRENCE FOSTER FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| PAINE COLLEGE | $10,000 |
| MBENGA FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| NORTH CENTRAL GA COGIC WOMEN'S | $10,000 |
| HOWARD WHITE CENTERCARDIAC AMYLOIDOSIS | $10,000 |
| SLAM DUNK BOOSTER CLUB | $6,500 |
| MAIN STREET RENEWAL FOR RALPH LEWIS | $5,769 |
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 (FY19–24, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 46% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +36% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 13 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, 47% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $133k 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
- PCPaine College2× · 2022–2024 · $23k · revenue +5%
- SBSISTERS BY CHOICE INC2× · 2021–2022 · $5k · revenue +36%
- WIWOMEN IN GOLF FOUNDATION INC2× · 2022–2024 · $3k · revenue +92%
Funded once
- NLNew Lif Tabernacle Cogicone grant, 2018 · $55k
- NLNew Life Tabernale Churchone grant, 2017 · $43k
- NLNew Life Tabernacle Churchone grant, 2019 · $40k
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.
As a whole every initiative that the Foundation undertakes strives to promote love, positivity, and equality to all.
To empower underserved youth and families to improve their quality of life through food security, access to education, and workforce development.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Unitedhealthcare Children's Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Mbenga Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
19 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. 19 of the 68 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 Paine College ↗
- Who funds The Martin Luther King Jr Center For Nonviolent Social Change Inc ↗
- Who funds Ryan Gordy Foundation ↗
- Who funds D Terrence Foster Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds ORLANDO SERVE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BRIAN JORDAN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MBENGA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Gigis House Inc ↗
- Who funds Georgia Transplant 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 · The Imlay Foundation Inc · The Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Chris Tucker 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.