· Public charity
Areawide Aging Agency
Identify needs of the elderly, determine available resources to fill those needs, evaluate their effectiveness, and coordinate existing programs and services for the elderly when feasible.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 19 grants below total $5,217,997 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $5,743,424 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $525,427 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $9k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $200k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $457k
- $250k+4 grants · $4.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| OK COUNTY SENIOR NUTRITIONSODEXO | $2,349,638 |
| AGING SERVICES INC | $1,302,518 |
| LOGAN COUNTY AGING SERVICES | $523,585 |
| COPTA-EMBARK | $376,800 |
| LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA | $116,800 |
| NEWVIEW OKLAHOMA | $80,000 |
| REBUILDING TOGETHER | $76,000 |
| ST LUKE'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH | $70,000 |
| CITY OF EL RENO | $63,239 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA | $50,964 |
| METROPOLITAN BETTER LIVING | $42,513 |
| FULL CIRCLE ADULT DAY CENTER | $40,073 |
| DAILY LIVING CENTERS INC | $23,519 |
| SALVATION ARMY - REDING SENIOR CENTER | $23,272 |
| SALVATION ARMY - SHARTEL TOWER'S SENIOR CENTER | $21,003 |
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, $10.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% 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.
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.
25 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k 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
- ASAGING SERVICES INC9× · 2017–2025 · $9.7M · revenue +32% · 75% of their budget
SUNBEAM FAMILY SERVICES INC6× · 2017–2022 · $984k · revenue +101%
LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA INC9× · 2017–2025 · $891k · revenue +138%
Funded once
- COCITY OF MUSTANGone grant, 2019 · $7k
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.
Circles of Caring Adult Day Health is a unique day-use program that provides a safe, caring, and nurturing atmosphere for adults and elders. We provide a wide range of services specialized to assist our participants with their medical,…
To help improve nutrition by providing meal services to elderly, ill or disabled residents unable to prepare their own meals, and to improve the mental health of the isolated recipients by providing visitation.
Adults day care
Providing services to Seniors
Enhancing the quality of life through integrated healthcare.
The organization's mission is to help maintain the independence of senior citizens in local communities by providing meal delivery, in-home chore services and rides to physicians and for other critical needs.
None
To keep the elderly and disabled citizens of Rockwall County living in their homes as long as safely possible through supportive services, nutritious meals, and daily human contact.
Meals on Wheels delivers between 140-160 meals daily to homebound patients and serves approximately 50-60 clients daily at the Senior Center. The program averages between 40,000-45,000 meals yearly for seniors and disabled clients in…
Provide services to local seniors to improve their quality of life and assist them in remaining in their homes
Identify needs of the elderly, determine available resources to fill those needs, evaluate their effectiveness, and coordinate existing programs and services for the elderly when feasible.
The Muleshoe Meals on Wheels purpose is to engage in all activities necessary, useful, or expedient, through operative measures and active organizations, to promote and further the interests of the Senior citizens of the area. The purpose…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Aging Services Inc and the most unlike its peers is Yukon Mobile Meals. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 27 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 Oklahoma County Senior Nutrition Development ↗
- Who funds AGING SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds SUNBEAM FAMILY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OKLAHOMA INC ↗
- Who funds REBUILDING TOGETHER OKC INC ↗
- Who funds NEWVIEW OKLAHOMA INC ↗
- Who funds Daily Living Centers Inc ↗
- Who funds Mobile Meals of Oklahoma County Inc ↗
- Who funds METROPOLITAN BETTER LIVING CENTER ↗
- Who funds Full Circle Adult Day Center Inc ↗
- Who funds VALIR PACE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds YUKON MOBILE MEALS ↗
- Who funds WOVENLIFE INC ↗
- Who funds NorthCare General Pershing Inc ↗
- Who funds REACHING OUR CITY 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: Oklahoma City Community Foundation Inc · Communities Foundation of Oklahoma · Sarkeys Foundation · Kirkpatrick Family Affiliated Fund of Occf Inc · El and Thelma Gaylord Foundation · Inasmuch Foundation · The Anne and Henry Zarrow Foundation · Carl C Anderson Sr and Marie Jo Anderson Charitable Foundation · The Merrick Foundation · Cresap Family Foundation · Harris Foundation Inc · American Fidelity Foundation
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 Areawide Aging Agency 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.
- Sunbeam Family Services Inc — 52% of income from government
- Newview Oklahoma Inc — 45% of income from government
- Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma Inc — 13% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Areawide Aging Agency?
Find your warmest path to Areawide Aging Agency through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.