Skip to content
Missouri Network of Child Advocacy Centers at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Missouri Network of Child Advocacy Centers

Missouri kidsfirst's mision is to empower adults to protect children from abuse.

$504k
Granted FY2022
6
Grants FY2022
3
States reached
$527k
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, FY2017 to 2022.

Health$2.4MCrime & Legal$497kHuman Services$127k
02FY2022 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $14k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $458k
  • $250k+1 grant · $527k
$100,150
Median grant
3
States reached
$849k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SYNERGY SERVICES: $14k → 8%KIDS HARBOR: $28k → 13%SOUTHEAST MO NETWORK: $16k → 14%SYNERGY SERVICES: $8k → 8%KIDS HARBOR: $14k → 13%SOUTHEAST MO NETWORK: $9k → 14%Kids Harbor: $13k → 13%SOUTHEAST MO NETWORK: $5k → 14%KIDS HARBOR: $10k → 13%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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.6M · 18 repeat orgs$420k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +80% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2022, 13 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
7

Total granted

$2.6M
$420k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+80%
+23%

Still filing today

89%
86%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
Crime & LegalHealthHuman ServicesEducationOther
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

  • NC
    NATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $408k · revenue +60%
  • TM
    The Missouri Foundation for Health
    3× · 2020–2022 · $220k · revenue +265%
  • TC
    THE CHILDREN'S CENTER OF SOUTHWEST
    4× · 2017–2020 · $131k · revenue +93%

Funded once

  • TC
    The Children's Mercy Hospitalgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $174k · revenue +43%
  • WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2020 · $124k · revenue +16%
  • SL
    ST LOUIS UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2020 · $83k · revenue +18%
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
Childrens Advocacy Centers of Mississippi

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…

Human Services
4
Memphis Child Advocacy Center

The mission is to serve children who are victims of sexual and severe physical abuse through prevention, education, and intervention.

Crime & Legal
5
Childrens Advocacy Center of Smith County

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.

Crime & Legal
6
Children's Center

Children's center serves children, youth and families through comprehensive mental health services.

—
7
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
8
Childrens Advocacy Center of East Central Illinois

To assist children who have been victims of abuse

Crime & Legal
9
Childrens Center

The mission of childrens center is to support and medically assess children who are suspected victims of abuse or neglect.

Crime & Legal
10
The Children's Advocacy Center of the Bluegrass Inc

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.

Human Services
11
Chicago Children's Advocacy Center

The chicago children's advocacy center unites public, private, and community partners to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of abused children.

Crime & Legal
12
Child Advocacy Center

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

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Child Safe of Central Missouri Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 25 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/23
Grantees still filing
19/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: $1,305,879 · OtherMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENTNATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC: $407,573 · OtherNATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INCMISSOURI CHILDREN'S TRUST FUND: $126,733 · OtherMISSOURI CHILDREN'S TRUST FUNDCOMMUNITY TREATMENT INC: $69,501 · Other+3 more: $51,182 · OtherThe Missouri Foundation for Health: $220,467 · HealthThe Missouri Fou…The Children's Mercy Hospital: $174,086 · HealthThe Children's M…CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE: $30,960 · HealthCHILDREN'S HEALT…NORTHWEST MISSOURI CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $16,000 · HealthTHE CHILDREN'S CENTER OF SOUTHWEST: $130,909 · Crime & LegalTHE CHILDREN…THE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER OF NORTHEAST MISSOURI INC: $73,813 · Crime & LegalTHE CHILD AD…CHILD PROTECTION CENTER INC: $30,598 · Crime & LegalCHILD PROTEC…NORTH CENTRAL MISSOURI CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER: $25,552 · Crime & LegalNORTH CENTRA…STONE COUNTY ASSISTANCE TEAM: $25,118 · Crime & LegalSTONE COUNTY…CHILD SAFE OF CENTRAL MISSOURI INC: $21,610 · Crime & LegalCHILD SAFE O…THE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $17,519 · Crime & Legal+2 more: $14,088 · Crime & LegalWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $123,624 · EducationST LOUIS UNIVERSITY: $82,825 · EducationKIDS HARBOR INC: $65,399 · Human ServicesSOUTHEAST MISSOURI NETWORK AGAINST SEXUAL VIOLENCE: $30,614 · Human ServicesSYNERGY SERVICES INC: $21,573 · Human Services
Other$1,960,868Health$441,513Crime & Legal$339,207Education$206,449Human Services$117,586

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC: $407,573 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetThe Missouri Foundation for Health: $220,467 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetThe Children's Mercy Hospital: $174,086 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S CENTER OF SOUTHWEST: $130,909 over 4y, 5.2% of budgetMISSOURI CHILDREN'S TRUST FUND: $126,733 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $123,624 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetST LOUIS UNIVERSITY: $82,825 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER OF NORTHEAST MISSOURI INC: $73,813 over 4y, 2.5% of budgetCOMMUNITY TREATMENT INC: $69,501 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetKIDS HARBOR INC: $65,399 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetCHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE: $30,960 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSOUTHEAST MISSOURI NETWORK AGAINST SEXUAL VIOLENCE: $30,614 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetCHILD PROTECTION CENTER INC: $30,598 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetNORTH CENTRAL MISSOURI CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER: $25,552 over 3y, 4.6% of budgetSTONE COUNTY ASSISTANCE TEAM: $25,118 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetCHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT EMERGENCY SHELTER INC: $24,053 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetCHILD SAFE OF CENTRAL MISSOURI INC: $21,610 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetSYNERGY SERVICES INC: $21,573 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetRIPLEY COUNTY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER: $18,129 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetTHE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $17,519 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetZERO ABUSE PROJECT: $7,750 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMinnesota Chapter of the National Childrens Alliance: $6,338 over 1y, 1.0% 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…Missouri Children's T…Sexually Abused Child…Community Foundation …Commerce Bancshares F…Enterprise Holdings F…Charities Aid Foundat…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Children's Alliance IncDC32.1× affinity13 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Missouri Network of Child Advocacy Centers funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Missouri Network of Child Advocacy Centers. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 25 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Missouri Network of Child Advocacy Centers’ 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