· Public charity
Massachusetts Children'S Alliance Inc
Massachusetts children's alliance pioneers the most promising, leading-edge ways that help victims of child abuse.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $50k–250k1 grant · $79k
- $250k+12 grants · $5.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Children's Advocacy Center of Bristol County | $729,217 |
| Children's Advocacy Center of Suffolk County | $664,217 |
| Middlesex Children's Advocacy Center | $484,217 |
| Plymouth County Children's Advocacy Center | $424,217 |
| Children's Advocacy Center of Worcester County | $419,217 |
| Berkshire County Kid's Place | $409,217 |
| Children's Cove The Cape and Islands CAC | $409,215 |
| Norfolk District Attorney | $389,217 |
| Eastern District Attorney's Office | $389,217 |
| Children's Advocacy Center of Hampshire County | $369,412 |
| Franklin County and North Quabbin Area CAC | $365,009 |
| Baystate Family Advocacy Center | $330,000 |
| Hampden County District Attorney's Office | $79,093 |
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 (FY17–22, $407k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +271% since the first grant, against +63% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.
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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- CACHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF SUFFOLK COUNTY INC9× · 2017–2025 · $2.5M · revenue +271% · 26% of their budget
- BCBERKSHIRE COUNTY KIDS' PLACE AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION CENTER INC9× · 2017–2025 · $1.7M · revenue +121% · 38% of their budget
- FOFRIENDS OF CHILDREN'S COVE INC9× · 2017–2025 · $1.7M · revenue ×17 · 66% of their budget
Funded once
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITYgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $37k · revenue +63%
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 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…
The bennington county association against child abuse, (dba bennington county child advocacy center and special investigations unit), is a multi-disciplinary team which strives to ensure children, families and adults involved in sexual…
Provide services for abused children
Child Advocates of Connecticut (CAC) transforms the lives of vulnerable children and youth by providing trained and supervised one-on-one volunteer advocates in the community, classroom and courtroom.
To provide legal representation and social services advocacy to new hampshire low-income and underserved children across multiple legal contexts.
We provide children affected by violence and their families with services of support, forensic interviews, resources, and hope.
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.
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.
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.
To reduce the devastating long-term effects that child abuse has on children, their families and society through immediate, coordinated, child focused services, education, and advocacy.
To provide a neutral, child-friendly agency community that facilitates a multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, detection, investigation, and treatment of child abuse.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Advocacy Center of Hampshire County Inc and the most unlike its peers is Northeastern University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 14 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 CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF SUFFOLK COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BERKSHIRE COUNTY KIDS' PLACE AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF CHILDREN'S COVE INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF HAMPSHIRE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF FRANKLIN AND NORTH QUABBIN INC ↗
- Who funds JUSTICE RESOURCE INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds Childrens Advocacy Center of BC ↗
- Who funds BAYSTATE MEDICAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Norfolk Advocates for Children Inc ↗
- Who funds NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY ↗
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: National Children's Alliance Inc · 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 Massachusetts Children'S Alliance Inc 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Norfolk Advocates for Children Inc — 100% of income from government
- Justice Resource Institute Inc — 48% of income from government
- Children's Advocacy Center of Franklin and North Quabbin Inc — 20% of income from government
- Baystate Medical Center Inc — 9% of income from government
- Northeastern University — 7% of income from government
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 Massachusetts Children'S Alliance Inc?
Find your warmest path to Massachusetts Children'S Alliance 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.