Skip to content

· Public charity

Central Vermont Council on Aging Inc

To support central vermonters to age with dignity and choice.

$1.4M
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$301k
Largest
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 2024.

Food & Nutrition$7.1MHousing & Shelter$350k
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $192k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $876k
  • $250k+1 grant · $301k
$69,443
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MEALS ON WHEELS OF LAMOILLE COUNTY$300,913
BARRE HOUSING SERVICES INC$219,249
RANDOLPH SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER$98,523
ORANGE EAST SENIOR CENTER$93,062
WATERBURY AREA SENIOR CENTER$92,572
MONTPELIER SENIOR MEALS PROGRAM$89,435
SOUTH ROYALTON AREA SENIOR CITIZENS$77,204
TWIN VALLEY SENIORS INC$69,443
GREATER NORTHFIELD SENIOR CITIZENS INC$69,250
MAD RIVER VALLEY SENIOR CITIZENS INC$67,214
VERMONT LEGAL AID INC$45,126
WASHINGTON CTY MENTAL HEALTH$38,456
CHELSEA AREA SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER$37,009
QUIN-TOWN SENIOR CENTER$30,028
TRI-VALLEY TRANSIT INC$26,259
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 (FY17–25, $1.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%TRI-VALLEY TRANSIT INC: $26k → 9%Quin-Town Center for Seniors: $41k → 9%QUIN-TOWN SENIOR CENTER: $30k → 9%Quin-Town Center for Seniors: $25k → 9%QUIN-TOWN SENIOR CENTER: $23k → 9%Quin-Town Center for Seniors: $21k → 9%Quin-Town Center for Seniors: $21k → 9%Quin-Town Center for Seniors: $21k → 9%Quin-Town Center for Seniors: $20k → 9%QUIN-TOWN SENIOR CENTER: $19k → 9%Waterbury Area Senior Cit: $115k → 9%Greater Northfield Senior Citizens: $82k → 9%WATERBURY AREA SENIOR CENTER: $93k → 9%GREATER NORTHFIELD SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $69k → 9%Waterbury Area Senior Cit: $91k → 9%GREATER NORTHFIELD SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $60k → 9%WATERBURY AREA SENIOR CENTER: $86k → 9%Greater Northfield Senior Citizens: $58k → 9%Waterbury Area Senior Cit: $79k → 9%Greater Northfield Senior Citizens: $51k → 9%Waterbury Area Senior Cit: $72k → 9%GREATER NORTHFIELD SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $49k → 9%WATERBURY AREA SENIOR CENTER: $72k → 9%Greater Northfield Senior Citizens: $45k → 9%Waterbury Area Senior Cit: $68k → 9%Greater Northfield Senior Citizens: $44k → 9%Waterbury Area Senior Cit: $64k → 9%Greater Northfield Senior Citizens: $42k → 9%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8.7M · 15 repeat orgs$125k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
4

Total granted

$8.7M
$125k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
0%

Still filing today

73%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $125k 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 ServicesHousing & ShelterCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalOther
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

  • MO
    Meals on Wheels of Lamoille County Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.8M · revenue +90% · 37% of their budget
  • OE
    ORANGE EAST SENIOR CENTER INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $673k · revenue +19% · 53% of their budget
  • GR
    GREATER RANDOLPH SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $626k · revenue +9% · 41% of their budget

Funded once

  • VL
    VERMONT LEGAL AID INC
    one grant, 2025 · $45k · revenue 0%
  • WC
    WASHINGTON COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES INC
    one grant, 2025 · $38k · revenue 0%
  • TT
    TRI-VALLEY TRANSIT INC
    one grant, 2025 · $26k · revenue 0%
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
Yale Senior Citizens Inc

Providing low-cost meals for the elderly in the surrounding area.

—
2
Southside Senior Citizen Center

Adults day care

Human Services
3
Southeast Grayson Senior Center

Senior Center facility for the local Meals on Wheels production.

Human Services
4
White River Council on Aging

White River Council on Aging invites older adults in the Upper Valley to age well through food, friendship, participation, and purpose.

Human Services
5
Jackson County Council On Aging

Provide services to local seniors to improve their quality of life and assist them in remaining in their homes

Human Services
6
Riverton Senior Citizens Center

To provide service for Riverton's seniors that enrich the participantslife, well being, daily activities and independence.

Human Services
7
Wheatland County Senior Citizens Center

Providing care and services for senior citizens.

—
8
Sherman County Senior Center Inc

To offer a nutrition program for older persons.

—
9
Davenport Senior Citizens

Meals for elderly

Human Services
10
Moscow Senior Citizens Inc

We help between 10 and 20 Senior Citizens on a weekly basis.

—
11
Council On Aging & Human Services

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

Human Services
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Waterbury Area Senior Citizens Association; the most unlike its peers is Capital City Housing Foundation. 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

14 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. 14 of the 19 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.

10
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
8/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Barre Housing Authority: $1,545,784 · OtherBarre Housing AuthorityGREATER RANDOLPH SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER INC: $626,414 · OtherGREATER RANDOLPH SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER INCSOUTH ROYALTON SENIOR CENTER: $594,624 · OtherSOUTH ROYALTON SENIOR CENTERTWIN VALLEY SENIORS INC: $444,511 · OtherTWIN VALLEY SENIORS INCMAD RIVER VALLEY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $422,864 · OtherMAD RIVER VALLEY SENIOR CITIZENS INCPROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: $414,725 · OtherPROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICACHELSEA SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER: $323,224 · OtherCHELSEA SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER+4 more: $215,801 · OtherMeals on Wheels of Lamoille County Inc: $1,764,741 · Community ImprovementMeals on Wheels of Lam…Waterbury Area Senior Citizens Association: $738,624 · Human ServicesWaterbury Area Seni…Greater Northfield Senior Citizens Inc: $499,389 · Human ServicesGreater Northfield …QUIN-TOWN CENTER FOR SENIOR CITIZENS: $219,207 · Human ServicesQUIN-TOWN CENTER FO…+1 more: $26,259 · Human ServicesORANGE EAST SENIOR CENTER INC: $672,833 · Housing & ShelterORANGE EAST…CAPITAL CITY HOUSING FOUNDATION: $241,550 · Housing & ShelterCAPITAL CIT…VERMONT LEGAL AID INC: $45,126 · Crime & Legal
Other$4,587,947Community Improvement$1,764,741Human Services$1,483,479Housing & Shelter$914,383Crime & Legal$45,126

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 budgetMeals on Wheels of Lamoille County Inc: $1,764,741 over 9y, 37% of budgetWaterbury Area Senior Citizens Association: $738,624 over 9y, 38% of budgetORANGE EAST SENIOR CENTER INC: $672,833 over 9y, 53% of budgetGREATER RANDOLPH SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER INC: $626,414 over 9y, 41% of budgetSOUTH ROYALTON SENIOR CENTER: $594,624 over 9y, 66% of budgetGreater Northfield Senior Citizens Inc: $499,389 over 9y, 41% of budgetTWIN VALLEY SENIORS INC: $444,511 over 9y, 33% of budgetMAD RIVER VALLEY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $422,864 over 9y, 39% of budgetCHELSEA SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER: $323,224 over 9y, 66% of budgetCAPITAL CITY HOUSING FOUNDATION: $241,550 over 3y, 20% of budgetQUIN-TOWN CENTER FOR SENIOR CITIZENS: $219,207 over 9y, 34% of budgetVERMONT LEGAL AID INC: $45,126 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWASHINGTON COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES INC: $38,456 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTRI-VALLEY TRANSIT INC: $26,259 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.

  • Who funds Meals on Wheels of Lamoille County Inc ↗
  • Who funds Waterbury Area Senior Citizens Association ↗
  • Who funds ORANGE EAST SENIOR CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds GREATER RANDOLPH SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH ROYALTON SENIOR CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Greater Northfield Senior Citizens Inc ↗
  • Who funds TWIN VALLEY SENIORS INC ↗
  • Who funds MAD RIVER VALLEY SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
  • Who funds CHELSEA SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CAPITAL CITY HOUSING FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds QUIN-TOWN CENTER FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ↗
  • Who funds VERMONT LEGAL AID INC ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds TRI-VALLEY TRANSIT INC ↗

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.

The Vermont Community FoundationVT25.2× affinity10 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Vermont Community Foundation · Vermont Foodbank · Community Bank Na Foundation of New England Inc · Meals on Wheels America · Ben & Jerry's Foundation Inc · 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 Vermont Council on Aging Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Central Vermont Council on Aging Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get 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 · 0–20%
    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 Vermont Council on Aging Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Central Vermont Council 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 19 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 Vermont Council on Aging’s filings →

    More from the funding graph