Skip to content
Rosalie Tilles Childrens Home Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Rosalie Tilles Childrens Home Inc

Its FY2019 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$21k
Granted FY2019
14
Grants FY2019
1
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2019.

Human Services$21kReligion$6kYouth Development$5kHealth$4kFood & Nutrition$3kCommunity Improvement$2kHousing & Shelter$1k
02FY2019 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$380k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Lincoln Childcare$3,500
Interfaith Center$2,500
Children's Emergency Shelter$2,000
Community Service Clearinghouse$2,000
Gregory Kistler Treatment Center Inc$1,500
Community Rescue Mission$1,500
Children's Service League$1,500
Girls Inc of Fort Smith$1,500
Boy's Shelter$1,000
Good Samaritan Clinic$1,000
Sack Lunch Program$1,000
Girl's Shelter of Fort Smith Inc$500
Hamilton House$500
Fort Smith Boys & Girls Club$500
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 (FY18–19, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%Children's Emergency Shelter: $2k → 17%Children's Emergency Shelter: $1k → 17%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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$33k · 11 repeat orgs$8k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +110% since the first grant, against +77% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
4

Total granted

$33k
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+110%
+77%

Still filing today

82%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19
Youth DevelopmentHuman ServicesHealthReligionCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalOther
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

  • TI
    THE INTERFAITH CENTER INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $6k · revenue +54%
  • CS
    COMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE
    2× · 2018–2019 · $4k · revenue +4%
  • FS
    FORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER
    2× · 2018–2019 · $3k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • GI
    Girls Inc
    one grant, 2018 · $3k
  • CS
    Childeren's Service League
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • WC
    WE CARE FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $500 · revenue +77%
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
Fort Smith Children's Emergency Shelter Foundation Inc

To support the activities of the fort smith children's emergency shelter, inc. through education and philanthropic activities.

Human Services
2
Fort Smith Christian Family Servicesinc

From conception to birth and beyond, we uphold the sanctity of human life; sharing the gospel of jesus christ, offering knowledge, medical services and support.

Human Services
3
Northwest Arkansas Children's Shelter in Dba Everhope Arkansas Inc

To provide a safe have, high quality care, and hope for the future to chidren who have been abandoned, abused, or neglected.

Human Services
4
Kitties & Kanines Shelter

Our mission is to provide non-lethal solutions to the homeless, abandoned, and feral animal population of fort smith, arkansas. we will do this through re-unifying animals with their owners, adopting animals to new families, or…

Animals
5
Fort Smith Boys Club Charitable Foundation Trust

To provide support for the fort smith boys & girls club operating needs.

Youth Development
6
Women's Crisis Center

Battered women's shelter

—
7
Greater Killeen Free Clinic Inc

To use available resources to provide acute health care to children and adults who are unserved, underserved, or have no access to health care.

Health
8
Northwest Arkansas Women's Shelter

The northwest arkansas women's shelter is committed to serving victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and empowering them to build lives free of violence.

Human Services
9
United Methodist Children's Home

To provide quality compassionate behavioral healthcare services to children and families of arkansas through a comprehensive continuum of programs which include residential treatment center care, therapeutic group home care, emergency…

Human Services
10
Good Samaritan Mission Inc

To care for the needy, share the good news of jesus christ and change lives by providing counseling, life skill training, dignity gained through work and christ-centered discipleship.

—
11
Cramer Childrens Center Inc

To provide a facility where children who are victims of sexual and/or physical abuse and their non-offending family members can go for evaluation and counseling.

Civil Rights
12
The Children's Center of Southwest

Provide safe place for various agencies to meet with and interview abused children.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys Shelter Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Interfaith Center Inc. 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

12 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. 12 of the 18 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
12/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Lincoln Childcare: $7,500 · OtherLincoln ChildcareCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE: $4,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSEGirls Inc: $2,650 · OtherGirls IncSack Lunch Program: $2,500 · OtherSack Lunch ProgramChildren's Service League: $1,500 · OtherChildren's Service LeagueChilderen's Service League: $1,000 · Other+2 more: $1,000 · OtherTHE INTERFAITH CENTER INC: $6,000 · ReligionTHE INTERFAITH C…FORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER: $3,000 · Human ServicesFORT SMITH CHIL…COMMUNITY RESCUE MISSION INC: $2,500 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY RESCU…THE GREGORY KISTLER TREATMENT CENTER INC: $2,000 · HealthTHE GREGO…GOOD SAMARITAN CLINIC: $1,500 · HealthGOOD SAMA…GIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH: $1,500 · Youth DevelopmentFORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS: $750 · Youth DevelopmentWE CARE FOUNDATION INC: $500 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS SHELTER INC: $1,800 · Community ImprovementHAMILTON CENTER FOR CHILD ADVOCACY: $1,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$20,150Religion$6,000Human Services$5,500Health$3,500Youth Development$2,750Community Improvement$1,800Crime & Legal$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE: $4,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetFORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER: $3,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY RESCUE MISSION INC: $2,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE GREGORY KISTLER TREATMENT CENTER INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS SHELTER INC: $1,800 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetGOOD SAMARITAN CLINIC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetGIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH: $1,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHAMILTON CENTER FOR CHILD ADVOCACY: $1,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS: $750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWE CARE FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetGIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH: $500 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Walter O Caldwell Fou…William Thomas & May …Elizabeth H & Stanley…Alline B & Chloe C Da…Arvest FoundationArkansas Community Fo…The Degen FoundationCadence Bank Foundati…Doss T Sutton Charita…United Way of Fort Sm…Maurras Family Charit…The Griffin Charitabl…
Walter O Caldwell FoundationAR26.4× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Walter O Caldwell Foundation · William Thomas & May Pitman Hennessy Foundation · Elizabeth H & Stanley E Evans Charitable Foundation · Alline B & Chloe C Davis Charitable Foundation · Arvest Foundation · Arkansas Community Foundation Inc · The Degen Foundation · Cadence Bank Foundation · Doss T Sutton Charitable Foundation Mark Barr and Joe Powers · United Way of Fort Smith Area Inc · Maurras Family Charitable Trust · The Griffin Charitable Organization

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 Rosalie Tilles Childrens Home Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rosalie Tilles Childrens Home Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.

    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 18 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rosalie Tilles Childrens Home’s 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