Skip to content
Knot Today Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Knot Today Inc

kNot Today assists organizations in creating awareness, supporting prevention initiatives, and promoting the restoration of exploited children, integrating outcome-based actions and programs.

$462k
Granted FY2024still arriving
26
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$61k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Crime & Legal$678kHuman Services$359kInternational$92kYouth Development$48kEducation$40kHealth$30kPublic Safety & Disaster$28kArts & Culture$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 26 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 26 grants below total $416,397, the rows itemized in this filing. The $462,382 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $45,985 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

  • Under $10k11 grants · $75k
  • $10k–50k14 grants · $281k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $61k
$10,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Hendricks County Child Advocacy Ctr$60,822
Julie Valentine Center$49,327
Positive Childhood Alliance NC$35,000
NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault$30,000
Purdue University MESA$25,000
Casie Center Inc$22,000
ChildFund International$21,510
Pats Place CAC$15,000
CAC of Spartenburg$15,000
Dunebrook Inc$15,000
Dickerson Childrens Advocacy Cente$12,300
Heartford House Child Advocacy Ctr$10,442
Fair Haven Inc$10,000
SCAN Inc$10,000
Childrens Advocacy Center of SE IN$10,000
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 (FY22–24, $161k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 70% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Kay Phillips CAC: $7k → 11%Hancock County Child Advocacy Ctr: $9k → 5%ASSIST Indiana Inc: $23k → 8%Fair Haven Inc: $30k → 15%Ascent 121 Inc: $20k → 16%ASSIST Indiana: $7k → 8%SCAN Inc: $10k → 12%Fair Haven Inc: $25k → 15%Heartford House Child Advocacy Ctr: $10k → 19%Cherish CAC: $10k → 5%Fair Haven Inc: $10k → 15%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 6% of Knot Today Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 74% of the giving stays in IN; by stated purpose, 69%.

Knot Today Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$842k · 16 repeat orgs$446k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
12

Total granted

$842k
$229k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+10%
+21%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 48% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $217k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentHealthCrime & LegalPublic Safety & DisasterPhilanthropyOther
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

  • The Hendricks County Child Advocacy Center Inc
    4× · 2021–2024 · $155k · revenue +40%
  • A1
    ASCENT 121 INC
    2× · 2020–2022 · $120k · revenue +32%
  • PC
    Positive Childhood Alliance North Carolina
    2× · 2023–2024 · $70k · revenue +124%

Funded once

  • NC
    North Carolina State Bureau of Inve
    one grant, 2023 · $40k
  • Indiana University Foundation
    one grant, 2022 · $38k · revenue +21%
  • IP
    INDY PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $35k · revenue +179%
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
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
2
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.

—
3
Child Advocacy Center

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

Human Services
4
Childs Place

The mission of Childs Place is to listen to children in a safe developmentally sensitive and legally sound manner; to unite professionals in a coordinated response to child abuse; to guide children and families toward healing through…

Human Services
5
Childrens Advocacy Project

To provide coordinated forensic and comprehensive services for alledged victims of abuse.

Health
6
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
7
Child Advocacy Center Inc

The primary service that the cac provides is a safe, child-friendly location for interviewing of children and coordination of referral programs when an allegation of sexual abuse and/or severe physical abuse has occurred.

Crime & Legal
8
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
9
The Childrens Advocacy Center of Cleveland County

To coordinate a collaborative, multi-disciplinary approach to child abuse cases. To provide private forensic interviews and medical exams in a child-friendly environment.

Crime & Legal
10
The Child Advocacy Center of Anderson Co Tn

To combat severe physical and sexual abuse and resulting trauma by coordinating and providing services in a child friendly, safe and nurturing environment.

Human Services
11
Isabella County Child Advocacy Center

Provide nbsp;community nbsp;prevention nbsp;and nbsp;awareness nbsp;programs nbsp;related nbsp;to nbsp;child nbsp;abuse nbsp;and nbsp;neglect

—
12
Adams County Children's Advocacy Center

To meet the needs of children and families in our community by providing a community based, child focused center that facilitates a compassionate multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, identification, investigation, prosecution and…

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Advocacy Center of Southeastern Indiana; the most unlike its peers is North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

38 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. 38 of the 42 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
38/38
Grantees still filing
24/38
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ASCENT 121 INC: $120,000 · Human ServicesASCENT 121 INCFAIR HAVEN INC: $65,000 · Human ServicesFAIR HAVEN INCFamily Service of Bartholomew County Inc: $42,775 · Human ServicesFamily Service of Bartholom…ASSIST INDIANA INC: $29,980 · Human ServicesASSIST INDIANA INC+6 more: $56,199 · Human Services+6 morePositive Childhood Alliance North Carolina: $70,000 · OtherPositive Childhood Alliance Nort…JULIE VALENTINE CENTER: $49,327 · OtherJULIE VALENTINE CENTERNorth Carolina State Bureau of Inve: $40,000 · OtherNorth Carolina State Bureau of I…Hollys House Inc: $30,528 · OtherHollys House IncNorth Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault Inc: $30,000 · OtherNorth Carolina Coalition Against…DUNEBROOK INC: $25,700 · OtherDUNEBROOK INCPurdue University MESA: $25,000 · OtherPurdue University MESAIndiana University Foundation: $37,517 · OtherIndiana University FoundationTHE FILM COLLABORATIVE INC: $15,000 · Other+5 more: $40,723 · Other+5 moreThe Hendricks County Child Advocacy Center Inc: $155,027 · Youth DevelopmentThe Hendricks County Ch…CHILDRENS JUSTICE AND ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $37,000 · Youth DevelopmentCHILDRENS JUSTICE AND A…INDIANA CENTER FOR PREVENTION OF YOUTH ABUSE AND SUICIDE: $37,000 · Youth DevelopmentINDIANA CENTER FOR PREV…CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA: $31,000 · Youth DevelopmentCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CEN…+1 more: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentTHE CASIE CENTER INC: $47,000 · Crime & LegalTHE CASIE…DICKERSON CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $31,800 · Crime & LegalDICKERSON…CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF SPARTANBURG CHEROKEE - UNION INC: $15,000 · Crime & LegalCHILDREN'…CHILD AND PARENT SERVICES INC: $9,219 · Crime & LegalCHILD AND…ALLIES INC: $70,000 · InternationalCHILDFUND INTERNATIONAL USA: $21,510 · InternationalFISHERS POLICE FOUNDATION: $53,000 · Public Safety & DisasterINDY PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION: $35,000 · Public Safety & DisasterTHE DRAGONFLY HOUSE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $22,350 · HealthMAMA BEAR EFFECT INC: $15,000 · HealthPats Place Child Advocacy Center: $15,000 · HealthSouthern Indiana Regional Alliance to Prevent Exploitation Inc: $5,000 · HealthSOCIAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF INDIANA INC: $5,000 · Health
Human Services$313,954Other$363,795Youth Development$265,027Crime & Legal$103,019International$91,510Public Safety & Disaster$88,000Health$62,350

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetThe Hendricks County Child Advocacy Center Inc: $155,027 over 4y, 3.4% of budgetASCENT 121 INC: $120,000 over 2y, 9.6% of budgetPositive Childhood Alliance North Carolina: $70,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetALLIES INC: $70,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetFAIR HAVEN INC: $65,000 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetFISHERS POLICE FOUNDATION: $53,000 over 2y, 35% of budgetJULIE VALENTINE CENTER: $49,327 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetTHE CASIE CENTER INC: $47,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetFamily Service of Bartholomew County Inc: $42,775 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetIndiana University Foundation: $37,517 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDRENS JUSTICE AND ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $37,000 over 3y, 6.8% of budgetINDIANA CENTER FOR PREVENTION OF YOUTH ABUSE AND SUICIDE: $37,000 over 3y, 4.7% of budgetINDY PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION: $35,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetDICKERSON CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $31,800 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA: $31,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetNorth Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault Inc: $30,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetASSIST INDIANA INC: $29,980 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetDUNEBROOK INC: $25,700 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTHE DRAGONFLY HOUSE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $22,350 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCHILDFUND INTERNATIONAL USA: $21,510 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF SPARTANBURG CHEROKEE - UNION INC: $15,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetMAMA BEAR EFFECT INC: $15,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetTHE FILM COLLABORATIVE INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetPats Place Child Advocacy Center: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCRISIS CONNECTION INC: $11,500 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetCHILD ADVOCACY CENTER OF ALLEN COUNTY INDIANA: $11,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetHeartford House Inc: $10,442 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetIRIS FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHolly's House Inc: $9,984 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetAdvocates for Children and Families: $9,942 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetCHILD AND PARENT SERVICES INC: $9,219 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHANCOCK COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $8,631 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetKAY PHILLIPS CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $7,200 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetLINCOLN COUNTY COALITION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE INC: $5,223 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSouthern Indiana Regional Alliance to Prevent Exploitation Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetSOCIAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF INDIANA INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetFRIENDS OF OPEN DOOR YOUTH SERVICES INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetMONIQUE BURR FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

National Children's A…Lilly Endowment IncIndiana Youth Institu…Children's Bureau IncPacers Foundation IncUnited Way of Central…Duke Energy FoundationThe Brave Heart Found…Nicholas H Noyes Jr M…Network for GoodNatl Christian Charit…American Online Givin…
National Children's Alliance IncDC31.6× affinity13 shared granteesties to 9 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Children's Alliance Inc · Lilly Endowment Inc · Indiana Youth Institute Inc · Children's Bureau Inc · Pacers Foundation Inc · United Way of Central Indiana Inc · Duke Energy Foundation · The Brave Heart Foundation Inc · Nicholas H Noyes Jr Memorial Foundation · Network for Good · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

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 Knot Today Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Knot Today Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    28report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Knot Today Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Knot Today Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 42 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 Knot Today’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