· Public charity
National Children's Alliance Inc
To support the development, growth and continuance of facilities where child victims of sexual and/or physical abuse can go for intervention and counseling.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k49 grants · $360k
- $10k–50k305 grants · $8.1M
- $50k–250k85 grants · $9.6M
- $250k+19 grants · $6.3M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA | $579,951 |
| CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF ILLINOIS | $430,487 |
| CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TX INC | $388,923 |
| CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TENNESSEE | $377,214 |
| CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF GEORGIA | $350,367 |
| PA CHAPTER CACS & MDTS | $339,459 |
| CALICO CENTER (CHILD ABUSE LISTENING | $338,480 |
| CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF MICHIGAN | $334,521 |
| FLORIDA NETWORK OF CHILDREN'S | $332,286 |
| NEW YORK STATE CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC | $320,927 |
| THE GRANITE STATE CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE | $316,933 |
| WEST VIRGINIA CHILD ADVOCACY NETWORK | $288,868 |
| COLORADO CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE | $287,321 |
| CACS OF WASHINGTON | $274,989 |
| CACS OF OKLAHOMA INC | $274,732 |
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 (FY17–25, $29.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +28% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
361 repeat relationships — 272 still active in FY2025, 89 since wound down; 66 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.0M 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 CENTERS OF ILLINOIS9× · 2017–2025 · $3.4M · revenue ×20 · 59% of their budget
- CACHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TEXAS INC9× · 2017–2025 · $3.3M · revenue +110%
- NYNew York State Childrens' Alliance Inc9× · 2017–2025 · $3.0M · revenue +78% · 55% of their budget
Funded once
- LALOUISIANA ALLIANCE OF CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERSone grant, 2017 · $177k
- GHGarth House Mickey Mehaffy Childrens Advocacy Program Incone grant, 2019 · $73k · revenue +12%
- TSThe Safe Center LI Incone grant, 2018 · $59k · revenue -3%
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.
To provide a neutral, child-friendly agency community that facilitates a multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, detection, investigation, and treatment of child abuse.
To prevent, treat, and reduce the trauma of the investigative process for child abuse victims and their non-offending family members.
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 provide a safe caring place to evaluate any child who may have been abused
Delta Childrens Advocacy Centers mission is to respond to child abuse in the Mississippi Delta by serving and nurturing children and non-offending caregivers through a trauma-informed multidisciplinary approach.
To coordinate a collaborative, multi-disciplinary approach to child abuse cases. To provide private forensic interviews and medical exams in a child-friendly environment.
Walker County Childrens Advocacy Center, Inc. will provide services to child victims of physical and sexual abuse, severely neglected children and children who have witnessed a violent crime. The Center will work every day to try and stop…
To help bring hope, healing, and justice to children in our community affected by sexual abuse or severe physical abuse. Safe Spot provides direct services to help child victims & nonoffending caregivers at no cost and to facilitate a…
The mission of macomb county child advocacy center, inc. is to prevent and reduce the incidence and trauma of child sexual and physical abuse in macomb county through collaborative,
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 operate a comprehensive child youth focused program based in a facility that allows law enforcement, child protection, mental health education professionals, prosecutors, medical and support services to work together to handle child…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Advocacy Center of Benton County and the most unlike its peers is Pinnacle Health Medical Services. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 29 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
464 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. 464 of the 521 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 CENTERS OF ILLINOIS ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds New York State Childrens' Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA INC ↗
- Who funds TENNESSEE CHAPTER OF CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds The Childrens Advocacy Centers of Michigan ↗
- Who funds Children's Advocacy Centers of Georgia Inc ↗
- Who funds OHIO NETWORK OF CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
- Who funds CALICO CENTER ↗
- Who funds FLORIDA NETWORK OF CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS INC ↗
- Who funds WEST VIRGINIA CHILD ABUSE NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI NETWORK AGAINST CHILD ABUSE ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF OKLAHOMA INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF WASHINGTON ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF KANSAS INC ↗
- Who funds COLORADO CHILD ADVOCACY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Childrens Advocacy Center of Virginia ↗
- Who funds MARYLAND CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CAROLINA NETWORK OF CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Children'S Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds ALABAMA NETWORK OF CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF ARKANSAS ↗
- Who funds CHILDHAVEN INC ↗
- Who funds NEW JERSEY CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds THE GRANITE STATE CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds OREGON CHILD ABUSE SOLUTIONS ↗
- Who funds SAFE HARBOR CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds INDIANA CHAPTER OF NATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ALLIANCE OF MONTANA ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTERS OF MISSISSIPPI ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF KENTUCKY INC ↗
- Who funds The Vermont Children's Alliance ↗
- Who funds Minnesota Chapter of the National Childrens Alliance ↗
- Who funds LOUISIANA ALLIANCE OF CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTERS ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKA ALLIANCE OF CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS ↗
- Who funds PROJECT HARMONY ↗
- Who funds Alaska 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Sexually Abused Children's Relief Endeavor (Sacred) · Children's Advocacy Centers of Texas Inc · Missouri Network Against Child Abuse · Ohio Network of Children's Advocacy Centers · Knot Today Inc · Children's Advocacy Centers of Georgia Inc · Rite Aid Healthy Futures · Children's Advocacy Centers of Pennsylvania · Tennessee Chapter of Children's Advocacy · In-N-Out Burgers Foundation · Children's Advocacy Centers of North Carolina Inc · Colorado Child Advocacy Alliance
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 National 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- New Jersey Children's Alliance Inc — 100% of income from government
- Connecticut Children's Alliance Inc — 95% of income from government
- Massachusetts Children'S Alliance Inc — 95% of income from government
- Kristi House Inc — 49% of income from government
- Friends of the Child Advocacy Center Inc — 33% of income from government
- Oregon Child Abuse Solutions — 30% of income from government
- Santa Rosa Kids' House Inc — 21% of income from government
- The Vermont Children's Alliance — 20% of income from government
- Maryland Children's Alliance Inc — 14% of income from government
- Children's Advocacy Center of Delaware — 10% of income from government
- The Children's Home Society of Florida — 6% of income from government
- Space Coast Health Foundation Inc — 3% of income from government
- Center for Hope Inc — 1% of income from government
- Childrens Center — 0% of income from government
- Orlando Health Inc — 0% 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.