Skip to content
Colorado Child Advocacy Alliance at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Colorado Child Advocacy Alliance

To support the missions of child advocacy centers in colorado to help children and their families heal from abuse and neglect via training, technical assistance, collaboration and strategic partnerships.

$1.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$150k
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 2025.

Crime & Legal$1.5MHuman Services$1.3MHealth$198kYouth Development$131kCommunity Improvement$25k
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
  • $50k–250k16 grants · $1.5M
$76,908
Median grant
1
States reached
$326k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SUNGATEKIDS$149,595
SAFE PASSAGE$133,488
RALSTON HOUSE - NORTHGLENN$117,205
DENVER CAC$114,210
RALSTON HOUSE - ARVADA$110,717
LIFE STORIES$97,438
CRAWFORD CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER$89,710
BLUE SKY BRIDGE$86,417
PUEBLO CAC$76,908
WESTERN SLOPE CENTER FOR CHILDREN$75,777
RIVER BRIDGE$73,327
SARA HOUSE$73,146
DOLPHIN HOUSE$70,257
KINDRED KIDS$67,623
TU CASA$65,566
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 (FY24–25, $350k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 94% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%BETTER TOMORROW: $20k → 6%LIFE STORIES: $97k → 9%KINDRED KIDS: $68k → 17%LIFE STORIES: $97k → 9%KINDRED KIDS: $68k → 17%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.
$3.1M · 15 repeat orgs$20k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
1

Total granted

$3.1M
$20k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+346%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’24’25
Crime & LegalHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEmploymentHealthYouth 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

  • RH
    Ralston House
    4× · 2017–2025 · $481k · revenue +108%
  • CA
    CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER FOR THE PIKES PEAK REGION INC
    4× · 2017–2025 · $282k · revenue +34%
  • DC
    DENVER CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER
    4× · 2017–2025 · $243k · revenue +78%

Funded once

  • BT
    BETTER TOMORROWgraduated
    one grant, 2025 · $20k · revenue +346%
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
Rusk County Childrens Advocacy Center Inc

To prevent, treat, and reduce the trauma of the investigative process for child abuse victims and their non-offending family members.

Crime & Legal
2
Guadalupe County Children's Advocacy Center

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…

Crime & Legal
3
Vermilion County Child Advocacy Center

Perform forensic interviews on minor children in response to calls from either the Department of Children and Family Services or law enforcement, regarding potential abuse of the child. The Center works as an advocate for the child with…

Crime & Legal
4
Child Advocacy Center

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

Human Services
5
Children's Advocacy Center of Comal Coun

To provide a neutral, child-friendly agency community that facilitates a multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, detection, investigation, and treatment of child abuse.

Crime & Legal
6
Childrens Advocacy Center for Child Abuse Assessment and Treatment

We provide children affected by violence and their families with services of support, forensic interviews, resources, and hope.

Crime & Legal
7
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.

—
8
Ft Bend County Child Advocates Inc

Fort Bend County Child Advocates, Inc. provides a voice, heals the hurt and breaks the cycle of abuse and neglect for children in Fort Bend County.

Civil Rights
9
Childrens Advocacy Center Inc

Provide services for abused children

—
10
Red River Childrens Advocacy Center

To facilitate healing and justice for victims of sexual and physical abuse, neglect and exploitation and to engage the community to protect and support children.

Youth Development
11
The Children's Advocacy Center of Hamilton County Inc

The cac provides intervention services for children who are victims of severe abuse and advocacy services to their non offending caregivers. this includes forensic interviews, medical exams, therapy, and prevention education. the cac also…

Human Services
12
Children's Advocacy Center of the Coastal Bend

Nueces county childrens advocacy center is organized to provide a safe environment for sexual and physical child abuse investigations. there is a comprehensive program in order to make investigations and interviews less traumatic.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Denver Children's Advocacy Center; the most unlike its peers is Better Tomorrow. 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

16 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
13/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY & FAMILY RESOURCES INC: $311,005 · Crime & LegalCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY & FAMILY RESOURCES INCCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER FOR THE PIKES PEAK REGION INC: $281,976 · Crime & LegalCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER FOR THE PIKES PEAK REGION…THE CRAWFORD CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $186,831 · Crime & LegalTHE CRAWFORD CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERCHILD AND FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAM: $172,834 · Crime & LegalCHILD AND FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAMPUEBLO CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $169,086 · Crime & LegalPUEBLO CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INCSARA Inc: $163,923 · Crime & LegalSARA Inc7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CHILD ADVOCACY CTR DBA THE DOLPHIN HOUSE: $141,900 · Crime & Legal7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CHILD ADVOCACY CTR DBA THE DOL…Ralston House: $480,844 · Community ImprovementRalston HouseA KID'S PLACE: $194,876 · Human ServicesA KID'S PLAC…KINDRED KIDS CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $135,543 · Human ServicesKINDRED KIDS…BETTER TOMORROW: $20,000 · Human ServicesBETTER TOMOR…Western Slope Center For Children: $166,554 · OtherWestern Slo…TU CASA INCORPORATED: $136,125 · OtherTU CASA INC…DENVER CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $242,713 · EmploymentRIVER BRIDGE REGIONAL CENTER INC: $164,104 · HealthFOUR CORNERS CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $130,672 · Youth Development
Crime & Legal$1,427,555Community Improvement$480,844Human Services$350,419Other$302,679Employment$242,713Health$164,104Youth Development$130,672

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRalston House: $480,844 over 4y, 8.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY & FAMILY RESOURCES INC: $311,005 over 2y, 11% of budgetCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER FOR THE PIKES PEAK REGION INC: $281,976 over 4y, 8.8% of budgetDENVER CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $242,713 over 4y, 3.5% of budgetA KID'S PLACE: $194,876 over 2y, 8.6% of budgetTHE CRAWFORD CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $186,831 over 4y, 15% of budgetCHILD AND FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAM: $172,834 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetPUEBLO CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $169,086 over 4y, 13% of budgetWestern Slope Center For Children: $166,554 over 4y, 6.7% of budgetRIVER BRIDGE REGIONAL CENTER INC: $164,104 over 4y, 6.4% of budgetSARA Inc: $163,923 over 4y, 5.1% of budget7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CHILD ADVOCACY CTR DBA THE DOLPHIN HOUSE: $141,900 over 4y, 15% of budgetTU CASA INCORPORATED: $136,125 over 4y, 9.8% of budgetKINDRED KIDS CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $135,543 over 2y, 21% of budgetFOUR CORNERS CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $130,672 over 2y, 8.9% 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.

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.

Anschutz Family Found…Colorado Gives Founda…National Children's A…Av Hunter Trust Incor…El Pomar FoundationThe Colorado Health F…Mile High United Way …Rocky Mountain Health…Hedge Funds Care IncMcInnes S and J Char …Gates Family Foundati…The Denver Foundation
Anschutz Family FoundationCO28× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Anschutz Family Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · National Children's Alliance Inc · Av Hunter Trust Incorporated · El Pomar Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Mile High United Way Inc · Rocky Mountain Health Foundation · Hedge Funds Care Inc · McInnes S and J Char Tr · Gates Family Foundation · The Denver 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 Colorado Child Advocacy Alliance funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Colorado Child Advocacy Alliance. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 16 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Colorado Child Advocacy Alliance’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