Skip to content
Area IV Agency on Aging and Community Action Programs Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Area IV Agency on Aging and Community Action Programs Inc

Enabling low-income & disadvantaged families & individuals of all ages to attain the skills, knowledge, motivation & to secure the opportunity needed for them to become fully self-sufficient, or in the case of disability, independent & self-sufficient to the extent feasible; to intervene at critical points in the causes of poverty;…

$6.7M
Granted FY2023
9
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$487k
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, FY2017 to 2023.

Food & Nutrition$4.4MHuman Services$452kCrime & Legal$452kCommunity Improvement$181kRecreation & Sports$85kHousing & Shelter$66kPhilanthropy$46k
02FY2023 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $881,551, the rows itemized in this filing. The $6,724,665 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $5,843,114 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 · FY2023

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $148k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $239k
  • $250k+1 grant · $487k
$25,696
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MID-LAND MEALS INC$486,592
TIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING$238,549
INDIANA LEGAL SERVICES INC$46,724
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC$27,806
GOOD SAMARITAN NETWORK OF HAMILTON$25,696
PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC$19,348
WHITE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC$14,830
CRAWFORDSVILLE PARK & RECREATION$13,515
CARROLL COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING$8,491
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 (FY17–23, $1.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $29k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC OF WESTERN INDIANA: $34k → 12%TIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $239k → 19%COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC: $28k → 12%TIPPERCANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $183k → 19%PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $19k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC OF WESTERN INDIANA: $25k → 12%TIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $165k → 19%PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $19k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC OF WESTERN INDIANA: $25k → 12%TIPPERCANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $106k → 19%PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $17k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC OF WESTERN INDIANA: $24k → 12%TIPPERCANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $82k → 19%PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $16k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC OF WESTERN INDIANA: $23k → 12%TIPPERCANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $51k → 19%PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $15k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC: $22k → 12%PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $12k → 11%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.6M · 10 repeat orgs$106k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +59% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2023, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
5

Total granted

$5.6M
$106k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+59%
+17%

Still filing today

80%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterCrime & LegalPhilanthropyFood & NutritionOther
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

  • MM
    Mid-Land Meals Inc
    7× · 2017–2023 · $3.6M · revenue +84% · 27% of their budget
  • TC
    TIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC
    6× · 2018–2023 · $825k · revenue +59%
  • IL
    Indiana Legal Services Inc
    7× · 2017–2023 · $452k · revenue +145%

Funded once

  • FF
    FOOD FINDERS FOOD BANK INC
    one grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue +17%
  • LT
    LAFAYETTE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING CENTER INC
    one grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue +6%
  • UW
    UNITED WAY FOR CLINTON COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2022 · $24k · revenue -8%
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
Indiana County Community Action Program

Provide resources for low income clients.

Human Services
2
Aging and Community Services of South Central Indiana Inc

Working together, our mission is to enhance the quality of life in our communities, generation through generation to assist older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons that have needs, to access opportunities that will allow them…

Human Services
3
Lifetime Housing Group Inc

Plan, coordinate and provide affordable housing to low-income individuals and families in Southeastern Indiana.

Food & Nutrition
4
Homebound Meals Inc

The Organization's mission is to assist shut-ins, usually the elderly, by delivering hot, nutritious and low-cost meals to them in their homes.

—
5
Meals On Wheels Inc

Meals on wheels is the leading privately funded organization promoting dignity and independent living for the homebound, through volunteer delivery of nutritious meals in the greater indianapolis area.

Food & Nutrition
6
Meals on Wheels of Evansville Inc
Food & Nutrition
7
Marinette County Committee on Aging Inc

Our mission at Marinette County Elderly Services is to assist older persons in maintaining a longer, healthier, and more fulfilled life.

Human Services
8
Kosciusko County Council On Aging and Aged Inc

To provide services and resources to the aged citizens of kosciusko county indiana and surrounding areas including transportation, mobile meals, and senior activities to improve quality of life

—
9
Feeding Indiana's Hungry Inc

By drawing on varied resources within public agencies and the private sector, we hope to provide hunger relief for those in need throughout Indiana.

Human Services
10
Food Bank of Northwest Indiana Inc

To provide food to various charitable organizations and needy individuals in northwest indiana.

Food & Nutrition
11
Community Action of East Central Indiana

To provide education and assistance to low income, disadvantaged individuals and children.

Human Services
12
Hardin County Council on Aging Inc

To improve the quality of life for those 60 and over in Hardin County.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Food Finders Food Bank Inc; the most unlike its peers is Good Samaritan Network of Hamilton County 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

13 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. 13 of the 15 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
11/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Mid-Land Meals Inc: $3,575,135 · OtherMid-Land Meals Inc+6 more: $338,331 · Other+6 moreTIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $825,483 · Human ServicesTIPPECANOE COUNTY COUN…Community Action Program Inc of Western Indiana: $180,539 · Human ServicesCommunity Action Progr…PAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $128,744 · Human ServicesPAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURC…Indiana Legal Services Inc: $451,745 · Crime & LegalGood Samaritan Network of Hamilton County Inc: $140,881 · PhilanthropyLAFAYETTE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING CENTER INC: $29,975 · Housing & ShelterHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF LAFAYETTE INC: $12,358 · Housing & ShelterFOOD FINDERS FOOD BANK INC: $30,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$3,913,466Human Services$1,134,766Crime & Legal$451,745Philanthropy$140,881Housing & Shelter$42,333Food & Nutrition$30,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMid-Land Meals Inc: $3,575,135 over 7y, 27% of budgetTIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $825,483 over 6y, 24% of budgetIndiana Legal Services Inc: $451,745 over 7y, 1.5% of budgetCommunity Action Program Inc of Western Indiana: $180,539 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetGood Samaritan Network of Hamilton County Inc: $140,881 over 6y, 2.5% of budgetPAUL PHILLIPPE RESOURCE CENTER INC: $128,744 over 7y, 4.2% of budgetWHITE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $107,919 over 7y, 5.4% of budgetCARROLL COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $83,585 over 6y, 9.1% of budgetFOOD FINDERS FOOD BANK INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLAFAYETTE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING CENTER INC: $29,975 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetUNITED WAY FOR CLINTON COUNTY INC: $24,110 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF LAFAYETTE INC: $12,358 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetYOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF LAFAYETTE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

United Way of Greater…Sia Foundation IncDuke Energy FoundationJames K and Mary Jo R…Indiana University He…Greater Lafayette Com…Community Foundation …Renaissance Charitabl…Paypal Charitable Giv…Natl Christian Charit…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
United Way of Greater LafayetteIN22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Greater Lafayette · Sia Foundation Inc · Duke Energy Foundation · James K and Mary Jo Risk Family Foundation Inc · Indiana University Health Arnett Inc · Greater Lafayette Community Foundation · Community Foundation of Howard County · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Area IV Agency on Aging and Community Action Programs Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Area IV Agency on Aging and Community Action Programs Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 15 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 2023, released 2023. 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 $7.5M 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 FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Area IV Agency on Aging and Community Action Programs’ 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