Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Capital Area Agency on Aging Inc

The agency's mission is to advocate and provide services to enhance the quality of life for older adults.

$1.9M
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$446k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Human Services$14MFood & Nutrition$510kHealth$228kCrime & Legal$203k
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $41k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $868k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.0M
$110,479
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TANGIPAHOA COUNCIL ON AGING INC$446,174
ASCENSION COUNCIL ON AGING INC$311,076
WASHINGTON COUNCIL ON AGING INC$277,301
EAST FELICIANA COUNCIL ON AGNING$137,564
IBERVILLE COUNCIL ON AGING INC$126,211
ASSUMPTION COUNCIL ON AGING INC$118,592
POINTE COUPEE COUNCIL ON$110,479
WEST BATON ROUGE COUNCIL ON$90,593
ST HELENA COUNCIL ON AGING INC$88,177
LA HOME CARE LLC DBA HOME$78,487
WEST FELICIANA COUNCIL ON AGING$60,025
SOUTH LA CAREGIVING LLC DBA$57,983
ALZHEIMER'S SERVICES OF CAPITAL$26,912
TANGI CARES LLC DBA HOME$14,092
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $2.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 16%EAST FELICIANA COUNCIL ON AGNING: $154k → 16%IBERVILLE COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $188k → 19%EAST FELICIANA COUNCIL ON AGNING: $148k → 16%IBERVILLE COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $170k → 19%EAST FELICIANA COUNCIL ON AGNING: $138k → 16%IBERVILLE COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $146k → 19%EAST FELICIANA COUNCIL ON AGNING: $134k → 16%IBERVILLE COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $140k → 19%EAST FELICIANA COUNCIL ON AGNING: $133k → 16%IBERVILLE COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $126k → 19%EAST FELICIANA COUNCIL ON AGNING: $105k → 16%IBERVILLE COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $110k → 19%East Feliciana Council on Aging Inc: $104k → 16%Iberville Council On Aging Inc: $109k → 19%East Feliciana Council on Aging Inc: $104k → 16%Iberville Council On Aging Inc: $109k → 19%East Feliciana Council on Aging Inc: $104k → 16%Iberville Council On Aging Inc: $107k → 19%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$15M · 16 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

16 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
0

Total granted

$15M
$0

Still filing today

38%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthCrime & LegalOther

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

  • CA
    CAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING - IBERVILLE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +61% · 55% of their budget
  • PC
    Pointe Coupee Council on Aging Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +37%
  • EF
    East Feliciana Council on Aging Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +40%

Funded once

    Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

    04Your field
    04the grantee network

    6 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 6 of the 16 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.

    1
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    2
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    6/6
    Grantees still filing
    6/6
    Grew since you first funded

    Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

    TANGIPAHOA VOLUNTARY COUNCIL ON AGING INC — $2,937,294 · OtherTANGIPAHOA VOLUNTARY COUNCIL ON AGING INCCAPITAL AREA AGENCY OF AGING DISTRICT II — $2,354,323 · OtherCAPITAL AREA AGENCY OF AGING DISTRICT IICAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING DISTRICT II — $1,573,689 · OtherCAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING DISTRICT IIPointe Coupee Council on Aging Inc — $1,129,938 · OtherPointe Coupee Council on Aging IncASSUMPTION PARISH COUNCIL ON THE AGING — $932,455 · OtherASSUMPTION PARISH COUNCIL ON THE AGINGCAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING DISTRICT II — $711,457 · OtherCAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING DISTRICT IICAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING DISTRICT 11 — $667,619 · OtherCAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING DISTRICT 11COUNCIL ON AGING-WEST FELICIANA — $510,185 · OtherSOUTH LA CAREGIVING LLC DBA — $510,001 · OtherLA HOME CARE LLC DBA HOME — $479,765 · Other+2 more — $393,093 · OtherCAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING - IBERVILLE — $1,205,320 · Human ServicesCAPITAL AREA AGEN…East Feliciana Council on Aging Inc — $1,122,562 · Human ServicesEast Feliciana Co…ALZHEIMER'S SERVICES OF THE CAPITAL AREA — $228,182 · HealthSOUTHEAST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES CORP — $202,735 · Crime & Legal
    Other$12,199,819Human Services$2,327,882Health$228,182Crime & Legal$202,735

    Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING - IBERVILLE — $1,205,320 over 9y, 55% of budgetPointe Coupee Council on Aging Inc — $1,129,938 over 9y, 10% of budgetEast Feliciana Council on Aging Inc — $1,122,562 over 9y, 22% of budgetCOUNCIL ON AGING-WEST FELICIANA — $510,185 over 9y, 16% of budgetALZHEIMER'S SERVICES OF THE CAPITAL AREA — $228,182 over 9y, 2.6% of budgetSOUTHEAST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES CORP — $202,735 over 7y, 0.4% of budget
    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 CAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING - IBERVILLE
    • Who funds Pointe Coupee Council on Aging Inc
    • Who funds East Feliciana Council on Aging Inc
    • Who funds COUNCIL ON AGING-WEST FELICIANA
    • Who funds ALZHEIMER'S SERVICES OF THE CAPITAL AREA
    • Who funds SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES CORP

    Government reliance of your grantees

    Every dot is one organization Capital Area Agency on Aging Inc 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.

    2024
    202122232425
    no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%your share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
      typical government reliance, FY2025

      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.

      05Through Plinth

      Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

      How do I get to Capital Area Agency on Aging Inc?

      Find your warmest path to Capital Area Agency on Aging Inc 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.

      On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 16 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

      Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      More from the funding graph