· Public charity
Children's Advocacy Centers of Arkansas
Promote, support, and assist the development, growth, and continuation of child advocacy centers in the state of arkansas to better serve victims of child abuse and their families.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $50k–250k6 grants · $1.1M
- $250k+12 grants · $3.9M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHILDRENS PROTECTION CENTER | $455,356 |
| HAMILTON HOUSE CHILD & FAMILY | $414,275 |
| CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF | $372,357 |
| WHITE CO CHILDREN'S SAFETY CTR | $372,109 |
| NORTHEAST AR CAC | $309,718 |
| TEXARKANA CAC | $308,629 |
| GRANDMA'S HOUSE CAC | $292,078 |
| COOPER ANTHONY MERCY CAC | $289,373 |
| SOUTH AR CHILDRENS COALITION | $288,291 |
| CHILDRENS SAFETY CENTER INC | $286,177 |
| RIVER VALLEY CAC | $284,396 |
| CAC OF PINE BLUFF | $251,010 |
| MENDING HEARTS CSC OF EASTERN AR | $241,653 |
| WADE KNOX CAC | $227,462 |
| PERCY & DONNA MALONE CSC | $211,923 |
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 (FY18–24, $3.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 70% 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.
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.
18 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 1 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, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $129k 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
- CPCHILDREN'S PROTECTION CENTER7× · 2018–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +217% · 28% of their budget
- HCHAMILTON CENTER FOR CHILD ADVOCACY7× · 2018–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +168% · 42% of their budget
- CACHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF BENTON COUNTY8× · 2017–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +162%
Funded once
- OCOUACHITA CHILDRENS COALITIONgraduatedone grant, 2024 · $129k · revenue +176% · 79% of their budget
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 combat child sexual and physical abuse by providing services to children and families in a safe enviroment.
Providing advocacy services for child abuse victims.
Walker County Childrens Advocacy Center, Inc. will provide services to child victims of physical and sexual abuse, severely neglected children and children who have witnessed a violent crime. The Center will work every day to try and stop…
To advocate for and provide services to children and families when there are allegations of abuse and neglect throughout the investigation,prosecution, treatment, and prevention of child abuse, and to reduce the trauma to childrent with…
Child Advocacy Services
To provide a neutral, child-friendly agency community that facilitates a multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, detection, investigation, and treatment of child abuse.
Provide services for abused children
The center is fully operational treatment facility involving child victims of physical and sexual abuse. Children affected by abuse were provided with therapy and professional guidance through the legal and counseling system which the…
Coordinating agency for abused children
To operate a comprehensive child youth focused program based in a facility that allows law enforcement, child protection, mental health education professionals, prosecutors, medical and support services to work together to handle child…
Provide advocacy services for abused children in Central Alabama.
Advocacy and care of physically and sexually abused children in lasalle county. we work with the court system in determining the best placement for children.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Advocacy Center of Benton County and the most unlike its peers is Ouachita Childrens Coalition. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
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.
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 CHILDREN'S PROTECTION CENTER ↗
- Who funds HAMILTON CENTER FOR CHILD ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF BENTON COUNTY ↗
- Who funds WHITE COUNTY CHILDREN'S SAFETY CENT ↗
- Who funds Grandmas House Childrens Advocacy Center Inc ↗
- Who funds SOUTH ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S COALITION ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST TEXAS CASA INC ↗
- Who funds MISSION CLINICAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds WADE KNOX CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds RIVER VALLEY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S SAFETY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds PERCY AND DONNA MALONE CHILD SAFETY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF PINE BLUFF ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF INDEPENDENCE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds MENDING HEARTS CHILD SAFETY CE ↗
- Who funds NE ARKANSAS COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds OUACHITA CHILDRENS COALITION ↗
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: Arkansas Community Foundation Inc · Arvest Foundation · National Children's Alliance Inc · Network for Good · 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 Children's Advocacy Centers of Arkansas 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.