Skip to content
Central Illinois Agency on Aging Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Central Illinois Agency on Aging Inc

Age central is the designated area agency on aging for illinois planning and service area 04, serving fulton, marshall, peoria, stark, tazewell and woodford counties.

$2.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$686k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Food & Nutrition$3.7MHuman Services$1.9MHealth$397kCrime & Legal$185kEducation$61k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $1,147,238, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,349,632 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,202,394 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $29k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $91k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $341k
  • $250k+1 grant · $686k
$24,642
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE$685,671
MSW PROJECTS OF HENRY IL$228,482
CENTER FOR PREVENTION OF ABUSE$59,823
CENTER FOR YOUTH AND FAMILY SOLUTIONS$52,640
GREATER PEORIA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT (CITYLINK)$44,726
TAZEWELL COUNTY RESOURCE CENTERS INC (DBA WE CARE)$24,642
METHODIST COLLEGE (AFFILIATED WITH CARLE HEALTH)$21,804
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY$9,856
PRAIRIE STATE LEGAL SERVICES INC$8,499
COMMUNITY CARE SYSTEMS INC$5,875
PEORIA COUNTY TRIAD$5,220
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 (FY25–25, $77k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 68% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%TAZEWELL COUNTY RESOURCE CENTERS INC (DBA WE CARE): $25k → 9%CENTER FOR YOUTH AND FAMILY SOLUTIONS: $53k → 14%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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.9M · 7 repeat orgs$1.4M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +8% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
3

Total granted

$5.9M
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
+1%

Still filing today

71%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $155k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24’25
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalEducationOther
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

  • NH
    NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ASSOCIATION
    3× · 2023–2025 · $3.5M · revenue +14% · 58% of their budget
  • MP
    MSW PROJECTS OF ILLINOIS HENRY
    3× · 2023–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +7% · 47% of their budget
  • TC
    THE CENTER FOR PREVENTION OF ABUSE
    3× · 2023–2025 · $694k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • CI
    CENTRAL ILLINOIS AGENCY ON AGING INC
    one grant, 2023 · $1.1M · revenue +1%
  • O
    Other
    one grant, 2023 · $115k
  • MC
    METHODIST COLLEGE
    one grant, 2024 · $20k
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
Senior Services of Central Illinois

To support and serve seniors with non-medical services and to promote independent living and enrich quality of life.

Food & Nutrition
2
Seniorage Area Agency On Aging

A federally designated Area Agency on Aging whose mission is to bring independence enhancing supportive services to the 60+ population and their caregivers in our 17 county-wide service area.

Human Services
3
Helen Mary Stevick Senior Citizens Center

Social services for senior citizens

Human Services
4
Washington County Senior Services Inc

To provide congregate meals, home delivered meals, transportation, and information and assistance to senior citizens of washington county, illinois.

—
5
Council On Aging & Human Services

Enhancing lives and building communities by providing transportation and nutrition services.

Human Services
6
Council on Aging Services for Seniors

To enhance the quality of life for our aging community by providing services that promote wellbeing and maintain independence.

—
7
Henry County Senior Citizens

Provide services to senior citizens in henry county, illinois.

Human Services
8
Heartland Resources Inc

Provide programs that provide service to elderly and handicapped individuals

Human Services
9
Mid-Illinois Senior Services Inc

To provide a variety of services for senior citizens

Human Services
10
Van Buren County Aging Program Inc

Provide leadership relative to aging issues and to carry out a wide range of functions, including meals, transportation and socialization, so that older persons are assisted in leading indepedent lives in their homes

—
11
Albert Gallatin Human Service Agency Inc

Senior citizen programs through the area agency on aging which provides a center, services, congregate meals and home delivery meals.

Human Services
12
Jefferson County Area Agency on Aging

Provide services to meet the needs of senior citizens of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Neighborhood House Association; the most unlike its peers is Bradley University. 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

9 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. 9 of the 16 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CENTRAL ILLINOIS AGENCY ON AGING INC: $1,128,153 · OtherCENTRAL ILLINOIS AGENCY ON AGING INCMSW PROJECTS OF ILLINOIS HENRY: $1,113,335 · OtherMSW PROJECTS OF ILLINOIS HENRYTHE CENTER FOR PREVENTION OF ABUSE: $694,438 · OtherTHE CENTER FOR PREVENTION OF ABUSECENTER FOR YOUTH AND FAMILY SOLUTIONS: $262,380 · OtherCENTER FOR YOUTH AND FAMILY SOLUTIONS+7 more: $309,749 · Other+7 moreNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ASSOCIATION: $3,461,756 · Community ImprovementNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ASSOCIATIONPRAIRIE STATE LEGAL SERVICES INC: $193,435 · Crime & LegalTHE CENTER FOR YOUTH AND FAMILY SOLUTIONS: $52,640 · Human ServicesTAZEWELL COUNTY RESOURCE CENTERS INC: $24,642 · Human ServicesBRADLEY UNIVERSITY: $70,478 · Education
Other$3,508,055Community Improvement$3,461,756Crime & Legal$193,435Human Services$77,282Education$70,478

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ASSOCIATION: $3,461,756 over 3y, 58% of budgetCENTRAL ILLINOIS AGENCY ON AGING INC: $1,128,153 over 1y, 19% of budgetMSW PROJECTS OF ILLINOIS HENRY: $1,113,335 over 3y, 47% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR PREVENTION OF ABUSE: $694,438 over 3y, 4.0% of budgetPRAIRIE STATE LEGAL SERVICES INC: $193,435 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetBRADLEY UNIVERSITY: $70,478 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR YOUTH AND FAMILY SOLUTIONS: $52,640 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTAZEWELL COUNTY RESOURCE CENTERS INC: $24,642 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Central Illinois Agency on Aging Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Central Illinois Agency on Aging Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's 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
    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 · 0–10%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Central Illinois Agency on Aging Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Central Illinois 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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 16 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Central Illinois Agency on Aging’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