· Public charity
The Corporation of Mercer University
Mercer university's mission is to teach, to learn, to create, to discover, to inspire, to empower, and to serve.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 7 grants below total $348,534 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $108,440,473 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $108,091,939 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $65k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $276k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| East Georgia Healthcare Center Inc | $124,991 |
| Emory University | $82,556 |
| Dalton State College | $68,248 |
| Georgia Council for Recovery Inc | $28,223 |
| Georgia Tech Research Corporation | $26,089 |
| Global Partnership for Telehealth | $10,427 |
| Brights Spirits Wellness and Recovery | $8,000 |
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 (FY22–25, $430k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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
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 +48% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k 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
- EGEAST GEORGIA HEALTHCARE CENTER INC5× · 2021–2025 · $620k · revenue +48%
- GCGEORGIA COUNCIL FOR RECOVERY INC4× · 2022–2025 · $430k · revenue +39%
- EUEmory University4× · 2017–2025 · $299k · revenue +80%
Funded once
- SISHAPEFIDELITY INCone grant, 2019 · $3.7M
- WSWILLBROOK SOLUTIONS INCone grant, 2017 · $434k
- PCPATTEN CO INCone grant, 2017 · $137k
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.
The georgia tech applied research corporation (gtarc) is organized and operated to support the research activities of the georgia institute of technology in the areas of innovative research, technical assistance and economic development.
The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…
The corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively as a supporting organization to and for the benefit of the georgia institute of technology to foster and support education and scientific research and economic development…
The UGA Real Estate Foundation manages and improves various real estate assets for the benefit of the University of Georgia, governed by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. The UGA Real Estate Foundation may also…
To facilitate, promote, structure, and coordinate collaborative scientific reseach and development of intellectual property focusing on public health needs.
Leading the creation and advancement of health equity we exist to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, increase the diversity of the health professional and scientific workforce, and address primary health care…
To provide high-value preclinical testing and training services to medical device, biologics, and pharmaceutical developers and manufacturers.
Research Triangle Institute is one of the world's leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 5,300 provides research and technical (continued on…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
To engage in charitable, scientific, literary, and educational purposes and to receive, hold, invest, and administer property and to make expenditures to or for the benefit of georgia institute of technology (git) and to support its…
The corporation has been organized to engage in activities and pursuits which contribute to the educational, research, and service functions of georgia state university. thus, the corporation will attempt to secure gifts, contributions,…
See Disclosure Above.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgia Tech Research Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Src Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 32 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 EAST GEORGIA HEALTHCARE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA COUNCIL FOR RECOVERY INC ↗
- Who funds Emory University ↗
- Who funds Fordham University ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF CENTRAL GEORGIA INC ↗
- Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds University of Georgia Research Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds SRC Inc ↗
- Who funds AUGUSTA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA PARTNERSHIP FOR TELEHEALTH ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Emory University
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 Corporation of Mercer University 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.
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
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.