· Public charity
Ohio Network of Children's Advocacy Centers
Promote the establishment and success of multi-disciplinary teams and children's advocacy centers by providing support, education, and networking opportunities to enhance ohio's respones to child abuse.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $43k
- $10k–50k27 grants · $867k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $344k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HOPE'S PLACE | $62,564 |
| CENTER FOR FAMILY SAFETY AND | $59,293 |
| CHILDREN'S NETWORK OF STARK COUNTY | $57,281 |
| MAYERSON CENTER FOR SAFE AND | $57,215 |
| NATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE | $55,526 |
| CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER (COLUMBIANA | $52,000 |
| CANOPY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER | $47,261 |
| CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER | $46,350 |
| SUMMIT COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY | $42,679 |
| WAYNE COUNTY CAC | $40,806 |
| MICHAEL'S HOUSE OF GREENE COUNTY | $40,360 |
| NOAH'S HOPE CHILD ADVOCACY | $38,157 |
| CLARK COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER | $37,701 |
| KID'S PLACE (LICKING COUNTY) | $37,385 |
| HARMONY HOUSE | $36,748 |
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, $938k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 27% 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 +56% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
34 repeat relationships — 30 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 4 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, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $48k 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
- DCDAYTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL4× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +140%
- CHCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER4× · 2017–2025 · $533k · revenue +53%
- CHCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF AKRON4× · 2017–2025 · $485k · revenue +76%
Funded once
- SASURVIVOR ADVOCACY OUTREACH PROGRAMone grant, 2024 · $40k · 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.
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.
To provide a neutral, child-friendly agency community that facilitates a multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, detection, investigation, and treatment of child abuse.
Providing advocacy services for child abuse victims.
To empower, protect and heal victims of child abuse. to decrease trauma in child abuse victims and increase prosecution success through a multidisciplinary team approach with all agencies involved.
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 prevent, treat, and reduce the trauma of the investigative process for child abuse victims and their non-offending family members.
Provide services for abused children
To coordinate a collaborative, multi-disciplinary approach to child abuse cases. To provide private forensic interviews and medical exams in a child-friendly environment.
We provide children affected by violence and their families with services of support, forensic interviews, resources, and hope.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Child & Family Advocacy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Athens County Child Advocacy Cntr. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 22 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
26 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. 26 of the 39 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 DAYTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF AKRON ↗
- Who funds WAYNE COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds RIVEON MENTAL HEALTH AND RECOVERY ↗
- Who funds The Garden Family Advocacy Center ↗
- Who funds HARCUM HOUSE ↗
- Who funds FAMILY AND CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION CENTER ↗
- Who funds CANOPY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds HOPE'S PLACE INC ↗
- Who funds TUSCARAWAS COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF GUERNSEY COUNTY ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR SAFE AND HEALTHY CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds LICKING MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CHILD & FAMILY ADVOCACY INC ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF PORTAGE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S CENTER OF MEDINA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds Crime Victim Services Inc ↗
- Who funds A CARING PLACE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds SIGNATURE HEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds ISAIAH'S PLACE 1 ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds SURVIVOR ADVOCACY OUTREACH PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds ATHENS COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CNTR ↗
- Who funds HARMONY HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN'S NETWORK OF STARK COUNTY 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: National Children's Alliance Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · Amazonsmile Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Ohio Network of Children's 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.