· Public charity
Louisiana Alliance of Childrens Advocacy Centers
Child abuse prevention and advocacy, provide training, technical support and resources to various local CACs in Louisiana
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $50k–250k9 grants · $1.4M
- $250k+5 grants · $1.3M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHILD ADVOCACY SERVICES | $272,429 |
| CHILDRENS ADVOCACY NETWORK | $267,015 |
| BATON ROUGE CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CET | $260,901 |
| CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES | $256,754 |
| MANNING FAMILY CHILDRENS HOSPITAL | $254,532 |
| CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER HOPE HO | $246,768 |
| HEARTS OF HOPE | $212,434 |
| GINGERBREAD HOUSE CHILDRENS ADVOCA | $207,168 |
| TERREBONNE CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENT | $197,710 |
| FAMILY AND YOUTH COUNSELING AGENCY | $165,802 |
| JEFFERSON CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTE | $119,800 |
| PLAQUEMINES COMMUNITY CARE CENTERS | $77,600 |
| PINE HILLS CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENT | $70,912 |
| CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF LAFOU | $54,720 |
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 (FY20–21, $45k) land where the poverty rate runs at 26%, against an area that typically sits at 18%. 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 +23% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 2 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, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $255k 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
- CACHILD ADVOCACY SERVICES INC5× · 2020–2024 · $632k · revenue +7%
- GHGINGERBREAD HOUSE BOSSIERCADDO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER INC5× · 2020–2024 · $581k · revenue +118%
- CACHILDREN'S ADVOCACY NETWORK INC5× · 2020–2024 · $558k · revenue +20%
Funded once
- CHCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL INCone grant, 2024 · $255k · revenue 0%
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.
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.
The Child Advocacy Center serves as a facility where children who are victims of physical abuse and their non-offending members can go for evaluation, intervention, evidence gathering and counseling.
Using direct representation and advocacy, we fight to keep children out of the justice system so that they can thrive in their homes and communities.
Provide children representation before the judicial system
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
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…
We provide children affected by violence and their families with services of support, forensic interviews, resources, and hope.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Child Advocacy Services Inc and the most unlike its peers is Project Celebration Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 16 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 CHILD ADVOCACY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds GINGERBREAD HOUSE BOSSIERCADDO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds BATON ROUGE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds Southern Center for Children & Families Inc ↗
- Who funds HEARTS OF HOPE ↗
- Who funds TERREBONNE CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds Childrens Advocacy Center - Hope House ↗
- Who funds JEFFERSON CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds Family and Youth Counseling Agency Inc ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds Plaquemines Community CARE Centers Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds PINE HILLS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF LAFOURCHE ↗
- Who funds PROJECT CELEBRATION 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: Louisiana Bar Foundation · Brooke It Forward Foundation · National Children's Alliance Inc · Shell USA Company Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Louisiana Alliance of Childrens Advocacy Centers 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Louisiana Alliance of Childrens Advocacy Centers?
Find your warmest path to Louisiana Alliance of Childrens Advocacy Centers 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.