Skip to content
Council on Aging for Southeastern Vermont Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Council on Aging for Southeastern Vermont Inc

To promote the well-being and dignity of older adults.

$377k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$7k
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Human Services$130kFood & Nutrition$121kArts & Culture$20kHealth$10kEducation$10k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $6,750, the rows itemized in this filing. The $376,927 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $370,177 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.
$6,750
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MAIN STREET ARTS$6,750
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 (FY21–22, $75k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 38% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Woodstock Area COA Inc: $15k → 9%Thompson Senior Center: $9k → 9%White River Council On Aging: $15k → 9%White River council on Aging: $7k → 9%Garden Path Caregiving: $15k → 11%Gathering Place: $14k → 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.

40%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$117k · 4 repeat orgs$174k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +14% since the first grant, against -20% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
16

Total granted

$117k
$167k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
-20%

Still filing today

100%
69%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesFood & NutritionHousing & ShelterHealthEducationArts & CultureOther
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

  • CO
    COUNCIL ON AGING FOR SOUTHEASTERN VERMONT INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $54k · revenue +14%
  • WA
    WOODSTOCK AREA COUNCIL ON AGING
    2× · 2021–2022 · $24k · revenue +373%
  • WR
    White River Council on Aging
    2× · 2021–2022 · $22k · revenue -12%

Funded once

  • BR
    Black River Valley Senior Center
    one grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue -39%
  • BF
    BELLOWS FALLS SENIOR CENTER INC
    one grant, 2021 · $15k · revenue -54%
  • GP
    GARDEN PATH ELDER LIVING INC
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -31%
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
The Homestead Inc
—
2
Southwestern Vermont Council on Aging Inc

The Southwestern Vermont Council on Aging exists to be a community force in creating and sustaining opportunities for elders and caregivers in our region to help assure that elders are able to maintain maximum independence and quality of…

Human Services
3
Bennington County Meals Program

Provide quality, nutritious and creative meals to individuals age sixty years and older; as well as, disabled residents of Bennington County, Vermont. This is accomplished through a community meal program and home deliveries to those…

Food & Nutrition
4
Wheatland County Senior Citizens Center

Providing care and services for senior citizens.

—
5
Yale Senior Citizens Inc

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

—
6
Meals on Wheels of Lamoille County Inc

Meals on Wheels of Lamoille Countys mission is to improve health and enhance the quality of life for our community elders by providing nutrition meals and social interaction.

Community Improvement
7
Vermont Association of Senior Centers and Meal Providers

To cultivate a unified voice and dynamic network of senior centers, meal providers, and professionals committed to excellence and responsive to the needs of the states growing older population.

Human Services
8
Southeast Grayson Senior Center

Senior Center facility for the local Meals on Wheels production.

Human Services
9
Greater Randolph Senior Citizens Center Inc

The purpose of the greater randolph senior citizens center is to provide social, educational, charitable and nutritional services to elderly residents of the area. - principally the orange county towns of randolph, braintree and brookfield.

—
10
Greater Northfield Senior Citizens Inc

our mission is to enhance the quality of life for seniors and the entire community through a variety of essential services and engaging programs.

Human Services
11
Williston Council On Aging Inc

Provide congregate meals, home delivered meals, and outreach for the elderly. public transportation services including handicap.

—
12
Council On Aging & Human Services

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

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Valley Village; the most unlike its peers is Main Street Arts. 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

16 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 16 of the 21 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
7/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COUNCIL ON AGING FOR SOUTHEASTERN VERMONT INC: $54,267 · OtherCOUNCIL ON AGING FOR SOUTHEASTERN VERMONT INCBlack River Valley Senior Center: $15,000 · OtherBlack River Valley Senior Center24 MAIN STREET LIMITED: $13,407 · Other24 MAIN STREET LIMITEDSt Michael Parish -Brigid's Kitchen: $9,495 · OtherSt Michael Parish -Brigid's KitchenHistoric Homes of Runnemede Inc: $8,500 · OtherHistoric Homes of Runnemede IncWESTMINSTER CARES INC: $8,333 · OtherWESTMINSTER CARES INCPUTNEY COMMUNITY CARES INC: $8,333 · OtherPUTNEY COMMUNITY CARES INCDumaine House: $8,333 · OtherDumaine HouseDam Diner: $8,333 · OtherDam DinerTOWN OF BRATTLEBORO RECREATION & PARKS: $6,667 · OtherWOODSTOCK AREA COUNCIL ON AGING: $24,100 · Human ServicesWOODSTOCK AREA COUNCIL ON AGI…White River Council on Aging: $22,453 · Human ServicesWhite River Council on AgingGARDEN PATH ELDER LIVING INC: $15,000 · Human ServicesGARDEN PATH ELDER LIVING INCBRATTLEBORO AREA ADULT DAY SERVICES: $13,921 · Human ServicesBRATTLEBORO AREA ADULT DAY SE…BRATTLEBORO SENIOR MEALS INC: $16,333 · Food & NutritionBRATTLEBORO SEN…BELLOWS FALLS SENIOR CENTER INC: $15,000 · Food & NutritionBELLOWS FALLS S…MEALS & WHEELS OF GREATER SPRINGFIELD INC: $8,333 · Food & NutritionMEALS & WHEELS …Marlboro Alliance: $10,000 · EducationNEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIONS INC: $10,000 · HealthVALLEY CARES INC: $8,333 · Housing & ShelterMain Street Arts: $6,750 · Arts & Culture
Other$140,668Human Services$75,474Food & Nutrition$39,666Education$10,000Health$10,000Housing & Shelter$8,333Arts & Culture$6,750

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOUNCIL ON AGING FOR SOUTHEASTERN VERMONT INC: $54,267 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetWOODSTOCK AREA COUNCIL ON AGING: $24,100 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetWhite River Council on Aging: $22,453 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetBRATTLEBORO SENIOR MEALS INC: $16,333 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetBlack River Valley Senior Center: $15,000 over 1y, 8.9% of budgetBELLOWS FALLS SENIOR CENTER INC: $15,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetGARDEN PATH ELDER LIVING INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBRATTLEBORO AREA ADULT DAY SERVICES: $13,921 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetMarlboro Alliance: $10,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIONS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetHistoric Homes of Runnemede Inc: $8,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWESTMINSTER CARES INC: $8,333 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetVALLEY CARES INC: $8,333 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPUTNEY COMMUNITY CARES INC: $8,333 over 1y, 11% of budgetMEALS & WHEELS OF GREATER SPRINGFIELD INC: $8,333 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetMain Street Arts: $6,750 over 1y, 6.5% 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.

The Vermont Community…Thomas Thompson TrustFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Vermont Community FoundationVT26.8× affinity11 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Vermont Community Foundation · Thomas Thompson Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Council on Aging for Southeastern Vermont Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Council on Aging for Southeastern Vermont Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 70%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Neighborhood Connections Inc: 7% of income from government
  • White River Council on Aging: 1% of income from government
  • Garden Path Elder Living Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
7get no government money at all
6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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 Council on Aging for Southeastern Vermont Inc?

Find your warmest path to Council on Aging for Southeastern Vermont 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 21 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $302k 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 FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Council on Aging for Southeastern Vermont’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