Skip to content
Childrens Advocacy Centers of Mississippi at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$3.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$393k
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.

Human Services$6.8MCrime & Legal$1.5MHealth$1.5MCivil Rights$1.2MYouth Development$145kEducation$6k
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $2,766,527, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,991,162 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $224,635 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

  • $50k–250k8 grants · $1.4M
  • $250k+4 grants · $1.4M
$229,739
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%SW MS CHILDRENT ADV CTR: $478k → 26%NATCHEZ CHILDRENS HOME: $284k → 31%SW MS CHILDRENT ADV CTR: $264k → 26%NATCHEZ CHILDRENS HOME: $116k → 31%SW MS CHILDRENT ADV CTR: $228k → 26%NATCHEZ CHILDRENS HOME: $113k → 31%SW MS CHILDRENT ADV CTR: $167k → 26%NATCHEZ CHILDRENS HOME: $91k → 31%SW MS CHILDRENT ADV CTR: $151k → 26%NATCHEZ CHILDRENS HOME: $88k → 31%SW MS CHILDRENT ADV CTR: $78k → 26%NATCHEZ CHILDRENS HOME: $81k → 31%SW MS CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CTR: $22k → 26%NATCHEZ CHILDRENS HOME: $8k → 31%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.
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11M · 11 repeat orgs$145k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +99% since the first grant, against 0% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
1

Total granted

$11M
$145k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+99%
0%

Still filing today

82%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $145k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’24
Human ServicesCrime & LegalCivil RightsHealthEducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • MC
    MS CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +15% · 26% of their budget
  • KH
    KIDS HUB
    7× · 2017–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +304% · 43% of their budget
  • SM
    SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +112% · 60% of their budget

Funded once

  • CH
    CHERISHED HEARTS INC
    one grant, 2024 · $145k · 27% of their budget
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
Delta Childrens Advocacy Center

Delta Childrens Advocacy Centers mission is to respond to child abuse in the Mississippi Delta by serving and nurturing children and non-offending caregivers through a trauma-informed multidisciplinary approach.

Crime & Legal
2
Child Advocacy Center

To combat child sexual and physical abuse by providing services to children and families in a safe enviroment.

Human Services
3
Walker County Childrens Advocacy Center Inc

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…

Human Services
4
Central Alabama Regional Child Advocacy Center

Provide advocacy services for abused children in Central Alabama.

Crime & Legal
5
Huntington County Child Advocacy Center Inc Dba Mckenzie's Hope

Provide a safe and compassionate, child focused center to promptly and thoroughly investigate child abuse.

Human Services
6
Safe Spot Child Advocacy Center of Wilkes

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…

Youth Development
7
Calhoun-Cleburne Children's Center Inc

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…

—
8
Childrens Advocacy Center - Hope House

To provide a child-oriented, multidisciplinary forensice interview enviroment facility and counseling center for victims of abuse and their families.

Civil Rights
9
The Childrens House

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.

—
10
Children's Advocacy Center of Ottawa Countyinc

Providing advocacy services for child abuse victims.

Crime & Legal
11
Talladega County Child Advocacy Center Inc

Interview facility for child abuse victims.

Human Services
12
Casa of Tipton County

Child Advocacy Services

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southwest Mississippi Childrens Advocacy Center Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 12 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SALLY KATE WINTERS FAMILY SERVICES INC: $1,254,777 · OtherSALLY KATE WINTERS FAMILY SERVICE…CANOPY CHILDREN'S SOLUTIONS: $916,124 · OtherCANOPY CHILDREN'S SOLUTIONSWESLEY HOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $661,617 · OtherWESLEY HOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER INCTHE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER OF NE MS: $407,926 · OtherTHE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER OF NE …SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $1,387,917 · Human ServicesSOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI …NATCHEZ CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $781,107 · Human ServicesNATCHEZ CHILDREN'S SER…Healing Hearts Child Advocacy Center: $991,924 · Crime & LegalHealing Hearts Ch…HOPE HAVEN OF HANCOCK COUNTY INC: $678,373 · Crime & LegalHOPE HAVEN OF HAN…MS CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $1,669,330 · Civil RightsMS CHILDRENS ADVO…KIDS HUB: $1,460,670 · HealthKIDS HUBFAMILY CRISIS SERVICES OF NW MS: $710,360 · EducationCHERISHED HEARTS INC: $145,451 · Youth Development
Other$3,240,444Human Services$2,169,024Crime & Legal$1,670,297Civil Rights$1,669,330Health$1,460,670Education$710,360Youth Development$145,451

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMS CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $1,669,330 over 7y, 26% of budgetKIDS HUB: $1,460,670 over 7y, 43% of budgetSOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $1,387,917 over 7y, 60% of budgetSALLY KATE WINTERS FAMILY SERVICES INC: $1,254,777 over 7y, 16% of budgetHealing Hearts Child Advocacy Center: $991,924 over 7y, 38% of budgetNATCHEZ CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $781,107 over 7y, 61% of budgetFAMILY CRISIS SERVICES OF NW MS: $710,360 over 7y, 18% of budgetHOPE HAVEN OF HANCOCK COUNTY INC: $678,373 over 7y, 85% of budgetWESLEY HOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $661,617 over 5y, 20% of budgetTHE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER OF NE MS: $407,926 over 6y, 5.9% of budgetCHERISHED HEARTS INC: $145,451 over 1y, 27% 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.

  • 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 ↗

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.

His Way IncNational Children's A…Amazonsmile Foundation
His Way IncMS22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: His Way Inc · National Children's Alliance Inc · 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 Childrens Advocacy Centers of Mississippi funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Childrens Advocacy Centers of Mississippi. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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 12 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 Childrens Advocacy Centers of Mississippi’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