· Public charity
Missouri Network of Child Advocacy Centers
Missouri kidsfirst's mision is to empower adults to protect children from abuse.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 64% of MISSOURI NETWORK AGAINST CHILD ABUSE’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2022
- $10k–50k1 grant · $14k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $458k
- $250k+1 grant · $527k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Department of Health and Senior Services | $526,502 |
| National Children's Alliance | $201,000 |
| Missouri Foundation for Health | $100,150 |
| Children's Justice Act Task Force | $86,505 |
| Children's Trust Fund | $70,695 |
| Midwest Regional CAC | $14,321 |
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 (FY17–20, $118k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 82% 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 +80% since the first grant, against +23% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2022, 13 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 FY2022, 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
- NCNATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC2× · 2021–2022 · $408k · revenue +34%
- TMThe Missouri Foundation for Health3× · 2020–2022 · $220k · revenue +265%
- TCTHE CHILDREN'S CENTER OF SOUTHWEST4× · 2017–2020 · $131k · revenue +93%
Funded once
- TCThe Children's Mercy Hospitalgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $174k · revenue +43%
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYone grant, 2020 · $124k · revenue +16%- SLST LOUIS UNIVERSITYone grant, 2020 · $83k · revenue +18%
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.
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…
The center supports and advocates on behalf of children's advocacy centers (cac) and multidisciplinary teams (mdt) statewide. cac's are facility based programs, which utilize an mdt approach (including child protective services, law…
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.
Children's center serves children, youth and families through comprehensive mental health services.
The mission is to serve children who are victims of sexual and severe physical abuse through prevention, education, and intervention.
The children's advocacy center of smith county's mission is to protect and restore the lives of abused children through team investigations, healing services, community outreach and strategic partnerships.
To assist children who have been victims of abuse
To provide a neutral, child-friendly agency community that facilitates a multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, detection, investigation, and treatment of child abuse.
The center coordinates the investigation and treatment of the most serious cases of child abuse in the bluegrass region. all services are provided in a nurturing, friendly and safe environment at no cost to a child's family.
The mission of childrens center is to support and medically assess children who are suspected victims of abuse or neglect.
The chicago children's advocacy center unites public, private, and community partners to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of abused children.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Child Safe of Central Missouri Inc and the most unlike its peers is Children's Health Care. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
23 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. 23 of the 25 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 NATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds The Missouri Foundation for Health ↗
- Who funds The Children's Mercy Hospital ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S CENTER OF SOUTHWEST ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI CHILDREN'S TRUST FUND ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds ST LOUIS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER OF NORTHEAST MISSOURI INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY TREATMENT INC ↗
- Who funds KIDS HARBOR INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ↗
- Who funds SOUTHEAST MISSOURI NETWORK AGAINST SEXUAL VIOLENCE ↗
- Who funds CHILD PROTECTION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH CENTRAL MISSOURI CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds STONE COUNTY ASSISTANCE TEAM ↗
- Who funds CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT EMERGENCY SHELTER INC ↗
- Who funds CHILD SAFE OF CENTRAL MISSOURI INC ↗
- Who funds SYNERGY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds RIPLEY COUNTY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST MISSOURI CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds ZERO ABUSE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Minnesota Chapter of the National Childrens Alliance ↗
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 · Missouri Children's Trust Fund · Sexually Abused Children's Relief Endeavor (Sacred) · Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Missouri Network of Child 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 Missouri Network of Child Advocacy Centers?
Find your warmest path to Missouri Network of Child 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.