Skip to content
West Virginia Child Abuse Network Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

West Virginia Child Abuse Network Inc

Supports the development, growth and continuation of child advocacy centers and multi-disciplinary teams so that west virginia communities can better serve children and families when concerns of child abuse arise.

$426k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$52k
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 2024.

Human Services$360kCrime & Legal$334kHealth$184kCommunity Improvement$70k
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $258,299, the rows itemized in this filing. The $426,407 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $168,108 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $60k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $146k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $52k
$10,978
Median grant
1
States reached
$503k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
North Star CAC$52,260
Hoops Child Advocacy Center$45,978
Stop the Hurt Inc$39,695
Sarah's House$30,124
Hero's Haven$19,396
Randolph County CAC$10,978
Monongalia County CAC$9,978
REACHH$9,978
Just for Kids Inc$9,978
Child & Youth Advocay Center$9,978
Child Protect of Mercer County$9,978
Mountain Cap CAC$9,978
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 (FY21–24, $165k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 17%. 45% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 17%Sarah's House: $30k → 14%Sarah's House: $30k → 16%Child & Youth Advocay Center: $10k → 18%Cornerstone Family Interventions: $14k → 19%Tri-County CAC: $8k → 19%REACHH: $10k → 23%Sarah's House: $23k → 16%Cornerstone Family Interventions: $5k → 19%Harmony House: $12k → 19%REACHH: $7k → 23%Sarah's House: $8k → 16%Harmony House: $8k → 19%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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$781k · 12 repeat orgs$168k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +16% since the first grant, against -13% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
4

Total granted

$781k
$92k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
-13%

Still filing today

100%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $76k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’21’22’23’24
Crime & LegalHuman ServicesHealthEducationOther
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

  • NS
    NORTH STAR CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC
    4× · 2018–2024 · $178k · revenue +761% · 35% of their budget
  • ST
    STOP THE HURT INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $168k · revenue +20%
  • HC
    HARRISON COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TASKFORCE IN C
    3× · 2018–2024 · $95k · revenue +200%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $70k
  • MC
    MARION COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue +2%
  • NC
    NICHOLAS COUNTY FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK INC
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue -24%
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
Child Advocacy Center

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

Human Services
3
Robertson County Child Advocacy Cen

Effective prosecution of child abuses, providing therapy and education for the abused, and providing a safe haven for the abused.

Crime & Legal
4
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
5
Walker County Childrens Advocacy Center Inc

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…

Human Services
6
Children's Advocacy Center of Ottawa Countyinc

Providing advocacy services for child abuse victims.

Crime & Legal
7
Carroll County Child Advocacy Center Inc

The Carroll County Child Advocacy Center exists to champion the needs of sexually, physically, and emotionally abused children in Carroll, Haralson and Heard counties through prevention, intervention and collaboration.

—
8
Childrens Advocacy Center for Child Abuse Assessment and Treatment

We provide children affected by violence and their families with services of support, forensic interviews, resources, and hope.

Crime & Legal
9
Morgan County Child Advocacy Center

To provide a safe caring place to evaluate any child who may have been abused

Crime & Legal
10
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.

—
11
Delta Childrens Advocacy Center

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.

Crime & Legal
12
Children's Advocacy Center of Hampshire County Inc

See schedule othe children's advocacy center of hampshire county (cac) provides a coordinated, culturally competent, multidisciplinary team response to allegations of child abuse in a dedicated, child-friendly setting. the cac brings…

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Monongalia County Child Advocacy Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Nicholas County Family Resource Network 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

19 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. 19 of the 20 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
12/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NORTH STAR CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $177,642 · OtherNORTH STAR CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INCHARRISON COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TASKFORCE IN C: $94,649 · OtherHARRISON COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TASKFORCE IN CIndividual grant recipient: $70,269 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMOUNTAIN CAP OF WEST VIRGINIA INC: $17,717 · OtherSTOP THE HURT INC: $167,918 · Crime & LegalSTOP THE HURT INCCHILD PROTECT OF MERCER COUNTY INC: $20,478 · Crime & LegalCHILD PROTECT OF MERCER COUN…RANDOLPH COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $17,478 · Crime & LegalRANDOLPH COUNTY CHILDRENS AD…MONONGALIA COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $9,978 · Crime & LegalJUST FOR KIDS INC: $9,978 · Crime & LegalMARION COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $8,000 · Crime & Legal+1 more: $6,000 · Crime & LegalBURLINGTON UNITED METHODIST FAMILY SERVICES INC: $90,549 · Human ServicesBURLINGTON UNITED M…HARMONY HOUSE INC: $20,162 · Human ServicesHARMONY HOUSE INCCORNERSTONE FAMILY INTERVENTIONS INC: $19,300 · Human ServicesCORNERSTONE FAMILY …REACHH FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER INC: $16,668 · Human ServicesREACHH FAMILY RESOU…Child and Youth Advocacy Center: $9,978 · Human ServicesChild and Youth Adv…NICHOLAS COUNTY FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK INC: $8,000 · Human ServicesCAMC FOUNDATION INC: $76,906 · HealthCAMC FOUNDATIO…CABELL HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL INC: $45,978 · HealthCABELL HUNTING…CAMC HEALTH EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $61,159 · Education
Other$360,277Crime & Legal$239,830Human Services$164,657Health$122,884Education$61,159

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 budgetNORTH STAR CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $177,642 over 4y, 35% of budgetSTOP THE HURT INC: $167,918 over 4y, 18% of budgetHARRISON COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TASKFORCE IN C: $94,649 over 3y, 18% of budgetBURLINGTON UNITED METHODIST FAMILY SERVICES INC: $90,549 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetCAMC FOUNDATION INC: $76,906 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCAMC HEALTH EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC: $61,159 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCABELL HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL INC: $45,978 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILD PROTECT OF MERCER COUNTY INC: $20,478 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetHARMONY HOUSE INC: $20,162 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetCORNERSTONE FAMILY INTERVENTIONS INC: $19,300 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetMOUNTAIN CAP OF WEST VIRGINIA INC: $17,717 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetRANDOLPH COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $17,478 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetREACHH FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER INC: $16,668 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetMONONGALIA COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $9,978 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetChild and Youth Advocacy Center: $9,978 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetJUST FOR KIDS INC: $9,978 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetMARION COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $8,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetNICHOLAS COUNTY FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK INC: $8,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetLOGAN COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $6,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

West Virginia First F…Team for West Virgini…The Greater Kanawha V…National Children's A…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
West Virginia First Foundation IncWV22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: West Virginia First Foundation Inc · Team for West Virginia Children · The Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation · National Children's Alliance 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 West Virginia Child Abuse Network Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from West Virginia Child Abuse Network Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
    15report 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.

    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 20 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $219k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on West Virginia Child Abuse Network’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