· Public charity
Childrens Advocacy Centers of Mississippi
The center supports and advocates on behalf of children's advocacy centers (cac) and multidisciplinary teams (mdt) statewide.
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.
The 12 grants below total $2,766,527 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $2,991,162 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $224,635 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
- $50k–250k8 grants · $1.4M
- $250k+4 grants · $1.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| KIDS HUB | $393,141 |
| CANOPY CHILDREN'S SOLUTIONS | $378,074 |
| MS CHILDREN ADV CENTER | $333,903 |
| SALLY KATE WINTERS FAMILY SVC | $268,849 |
| CENTRAL MS CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER | $247,605 |
| HEALING HARTS CHILD ADV CTR | $229,739 |
| SW MS CHILDRENT ADV CTR | $227,602 |
| WESLEY HOUSE | $176,083 |
| FAMILY CRISIS SERVICE OF NW MS | $165,568 |
| CHERISHED HEARTS | $145,451 |
| NATCHEZ CHILDRENS HOME | $115,962 |
| HOPE HAVEN | $84,550 |
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 (FY17–24, $2.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 28%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 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.
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 +99% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
11 repeat relationships — 10 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, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $145k 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
- MCMS CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC7× · 2017–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +15% · 26% of their budget
- KHKIDS HUB7× · 2017–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +304% · 43% of their budget
- SMSOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC7× · 2017–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +112% · 60% of their budget
Funded once
- CHCHERISHED HEARTS INCone grant, 2024 · $145k · 27% 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.
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 combat child sexual and physical abuse by providing services to children and families in a safe enviroment.
Provide advocacy services for abused children in Central Alabama.
Provide a safe and compassionate, child focused center to promptly and thoroughly investigate child abuse.
To help bring hope, healing, and justice to children in our community affected by sexual abuse or severe physical abuse. Safe Spot provides direct services to help child victims & nonoffending caregivers at no cost and to facilitate a…
To provide a child-focused approach to the intervention, treatment, prevention, and prosecution of child abuse cases. we assist families with information, legal rights, counseling, group support, or crisis intervention. all services are…
To reduce trauma to children who have experienced abuse as well as their families by providing a safe and supportive environment through a collaboration of community agencies.
To provide a child-oriented, multidisciplinary forensice interview enviroment facility and counseling center for victims of abuse and their families.
Providing advocacy services for child abuse victims.
Child Advocacy Services
Interview facility for child abuse victims.
The mission of macomb county child advocacy center, inc. is to prevent and reduce the incidence and trauma of child sexual and physical abuse in macomb county through collaborative,
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southwest Mississippi Childrens Advocacy Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Ms Childrens Advocacy Center 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 12 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 MS CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds KIDS HUB ↗
- Who funds SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds SALLY KATE WINTERS FAMILY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds Healing Hearts Child Advocacy Center ↗
- Who funds NATCHEZ CHILDREN'S SERVICES ↗
- Who funds FAMILY CRISIS SERVICES OF NW MS ↗
- Who funds HOPE HAVEN OF HANCOCK COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds WESLEY HOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER OF NE MS ↗
- Who funds CHERISHED HEARTS 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: His Way Inc · National Children's Alliance Inc · 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 Childrens Advocacy Centers of Mississippi 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.