Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Meals on Wheels America

To empower local community programs to improve the health and quality of life of the seniors they serve so that no one is left hungry or isolated.

$6.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
235
Grants FY2024still arriving
44
States reached
$622k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
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 FY2017–2024.

Food & Nutrition$35MHuman Services$28MHealth$1.6MCommunity Improvement$1.4MHousing & Shelter$1.2MEmployment$400kRecreation & Sports$397kPhilanthropy$237kOther$0
02FY2024 · 235 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 235 grants below total $5,033,750 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $6,456,235 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,422,485 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k87 grants · $560k
  • $10k–50k136 grants · $2.8M
  • $50k–250k11 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+1 grant · $622k
$11,807
Median grant
44
States reached
$44M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MEALS ON WHEELS CENTRAL TEXAS$622,000
MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLAND$157,286
OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING$152,000
SENIOR NEIGHBORS INC$131,141
NORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING$99,294
FAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER$94,381
MEALS ON WHEELS CHICAGO$91,249
MEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO$84,469
CHATHAM COUNTY AGING SERVICES$82,000
NEIGHBORLY CARE NETWORK$77,980
SENIOR CITIZENS INC$62,244
EAST PASCO MEALS ON WHEELS$50,000
METROPOLITAN INTER-FAITH ASSOCIATION$42,601
MEALS ON WHEELS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY$42,223
CHEROKEE COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS$42,000
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 (FY17–24, $21.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 75% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BERKS ENCORE: $103k → 11%MEALS ON WHEELS DIABLO REGION: $112k → 9%LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF MINNESOTA: $109k → 14%SENIOR CONCERNS: $140k → 10%BAY RIDGE CENTER: $158k → 20%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO: $166k → 11%PENINSULA VOLUNTEERS INC: $117k → 7%HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION: $157k → 14%MEALS ON WHEELS WEST: $117k → 14%ASTER AGING INC: $108k → 11%FAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER: $113k → 9%CATHOLIC CHARITIES SENIOR DININGMOWS: $107k → 11%MEALS ON WHEELS NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS: $123k → 10%MEALS ON WHEELS JEFFERSON AND HARDIN COUNTIES: $103k → 19%COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION OF SOUTH TEXAS: $128k → 25%AGING MATTERS IN BREVARD: $133k → 10%SENIOR RESOURCE ASSOCIATION: $130k → 12%NEIGHBORLY CARE NETWORK: $115k → 12%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $301k → 13%ELDER CARE SERVICES INC: $142k → 19%NORTHWEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $103k → 10%SENIORAGE AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $104k → 15%SMOKY MOUNTAIN MEALS ON WHEELS: $105k → 10%METROPOLITAN INTER-FAITH ASSOCIATION: $139k → 17%SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $144k → 16%ATHENS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ON AGING: $196k → 27%PREBLE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $107k → 11%GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: $105k → 12%MEALS ON WHEELS OF NORTHEAST OHIO: $103k → 13%ROSE CENTERS FOR AGING WELL: $103k → 17%WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING - MEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE: $103k → 12%NORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING: $159k → 21%DUPAGE SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL: $106k → 7%CARELINK: $104k → 17%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $200k → 13%NORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING: $103k → 21%ELDER SERVICES OF THE MERRIMACK VALLEY: $105k → 10%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $169k → 13%ETHOS: $109k → 16%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $153k → 13%MEALS ON WHEELS ATLANTA: $199k → 13%COMMUNITY SERVINGS INC: $109k → 16%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $152k → 13%SPRINGWELL INC: $128k → 8%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $126k → 13%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $120k → 13%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $105k → 13%MEALS ON WHEELS OF SOUTHWEST OH & NORTHERN KY: $136k → 16%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.

Which US states your grants reach

AK
ME
VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
OK
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL

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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$61M · 496 repeat orgs$8.8M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +33% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.

496 repeat relationships — 210 still active in FY2024, 286 since wound down; 24 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

496
270

Total granted

$61M
$8.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+13%

Still filing today

90%
77%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $408k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesFood & NutritionHealthCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyOther

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

  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $5.8M · revenue +17%
  • OC
    Osceola County Council on Aging Inc
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +36%
  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +108%

Funded once

  • EB
    EAST BATON ROUGE COUNCIL ON THE AGING INC
    one grant, 2020 · $150k
  • YW
    YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2020 · $135k · revenue -21%
  • CS
    COMMUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL OF BREVARD COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2020 · $133k · revenue +18%

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

04Your field

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.

1
Council On Aging & Human Services

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

Human Services
2
Jefferson County Area Agency on Aging

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

—
3
West Contra Costa County Meals On Wheels

Enable frail seniors to maintain their independence at home by providing them with high quality, nutritious meals that are cost effective, prepared in West Contra Costa County, delivered by caring drivers and administered by local…

Food & Nutrition
4
Meals On Wheels

Prepare and deliver hot meals to the elderly and disabled 5 days a week.

Human Services
5
Stark County Council On Aging

Provide elderly services to allow persons to stay in their own homes

Human Services
6
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
7
Marinette County Committee on Aging Inc

Our mission at Marinette County Elderly Services is to assist older persons in maintaining a longer, healthier, and more fulfilled life.

Human Services
8
Meals On Wheels of Somerset County Inc

Providing meals to the elderly and needy

Food & Nutrition
9
We Care Senior Meals Program

To provide nutritional services and meals to senior citizens who are economically disadvantaged, frail, disabled or homebound.

—
10
Dillon County Council On Aging

Provides senior center and congregate and home delivered meals, homemaker services allowing seniors to remain in their homes.

Human Services
11
Meals On Wheels of Chester County

To provide nutritious meals and personal interaction to homebound adults living in chester county to help them live independently in their own homes.

Human Services
12
Sherman County Senior Center Inc

To offer a nutrition program for older persons.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Senior Hub Inc and the most unlike its peers is Southeast Development Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadySenior Support ServicesChild Abuse Advocacy Servic…Animal Rescue and ShelterHealth Access Advocacy and …Community FoundationsDevelopmental Disabilities …Independent K-12 SchoolsAffordable Housing Construc…Addiction Recovery ServicesUnited Way AffiliatesFood Banks and PantriesJewish Community Organizati…Affordable Housing Developm…Community Foundations
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 47 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%2%<5yr14%2%5–10yr19%6%10–20yr16%14%20–35yr13%58%35–55yr16%19%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%1%<5yr14%2%5–10yr19%4%10–20yr16%9%20–35yr13%62%35–55yr16%23%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.9% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.9%7/753
the rest of the field
13%
240,389/1,818,812

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

687 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. 687 of the 790 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.

13
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
141
Early backer (in before they grew)
670/687
Grantees still filing
519/687
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

MEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC — $5,785,562 · Food & NutritionMEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INCMEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINC — $1,017,445 · Food & NutritionMEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINCLIFECARE ALLIANCE — $999,125 · Food & NutritionLIFECARE ALLIANCE+44 more — $7,818,341 · Food & Nutrition+44 moreOsceola County Council on Aging Inc — $1,325,880 · Human ServicesOsceola County Council on Aging IncNORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING INC — $537,294 · Human Services+79 more — $13,536,554 · Human Services+79 moreSENIOR NEIGHBORS INC — $973,073 · OtherSENIOR NEIGHBORS INCCHATHAM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC — $587,029 · OtherMEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC — $454,118 · Other+59 more — $10,041,293 · Other+59 moreVISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS — $316,078 · HealthPROJECT ANGEL FOOD — $190,000 · HealthUR MEDICINE HOME CARE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC — $186,895 · HealthST MARY'S HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER INC — $171,209 · HealthTHE HEALTH TRUST — $127,894 · HealthRAYMOND AND MIRIAM KLEIN JCC (D/B/A KLEINLIFE) — $193,608 · Recreation & SportsJewish Community Center Of Cincinnati — $148,726 · Recreation & SportsNEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE — $141,245 · Recreation & SportsUNITED WAY OF CENTRAL ALABAMA INC — $172,670 · PhilanthropySAGE ELDERCARE — $116,577 · Education
Food & Nutrition$15,620,473Human Services$15,399,728Other$12,055,513Health$992,076Recreation & Sports$483,579Philanthropy$172,670Education$116,577

Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetMEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC — $5,785,562 over 8y, 7.0% of budgetOsceola County Council on Aging Inc — $1,325,880 over 8y, 2.4% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINC — $1,017,445 over 8y, 1.7% of budgetLIFECARE ALLIANCE — $999,125 over 8y, 1.1% of budgetSENIOR NEIGHBORS INC — $973,073 over 8y, 3.9% of budgetCHATHAM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC — $587,029 over 8y, 6.4% of budgetNORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING INC — $537,294 over 5y, 9.9% of budgetFAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER INC — $492,905 over 7y, 1.1% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC — $454,118 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS CHICAGO — $409,826 over 6y, 9.9% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO — $363,901 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetMeals on Wheels New Mexico — $358,493 over 6y, 5.2% of budgetATHENS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ON AGING INC — $352,271 over 8y, 4.1% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE INC — $321,579 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetSENIOR CITIZENS INC — $316,262 over 8y, 3.0% of budgetVISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS — $316,078 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetMAC INCORPORATED — $294,384 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetMeals on Wheels Atlanta Inc — $282,135 over 7y, 1.7% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS DIABLO REGION — $274,488 over 7y, 3.3% of budgetMeals on Wheels of Metro Tulsa Inc — $273,612 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetWesley Community Services Organization — $269,021 over 6y, 1.6% of budgetNEIGHBORLY CARE NETWORK INC — $268,980 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetCITYMEALS-ON-WHEELS — $262,135 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetASTER AGING INC (FKA EAST VALLEY ADULT RESOURCES INC) — $261,006 over 6y, 3.5% of budgetGUERNSEY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER INC — $259,012 over 7y, 4.2% of budgetInterfaith Ministries for Greater Houston — $258,493 over 8y, 0.5% of budgetST VINCENT SENIOR CITIZEN NUTRITION PROGRAM INC — $257,831 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS ORANGE COUNTY NC — $248,057 over 7y, 7.9% of budgetMetropolitan Inter-Faith Association — $245,286 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetWashington DC Meals on Wheels Inc — $245,243 over 8y, 18% of budgetMEALS-ON-WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO INC — $243,946 over 8y, 1.7% of budgetBLOUNT COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY — $239,863 over 7y, 3.7% of budgetCouncil on Aging Services for Seniors — $237,362 over 4y, 2.4% of budgetKENOSHA AREA FAMILY AND AGING SERVICES INC — $230,585 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF NORTHEASTERN PA INC — $226,769 over 7y, 6.0% of budgetCENTRAL VERMONT COUNCIL ON AGING INC — $225,736 over 5y, 2.2% of budgetSOURCEPOINT — $225,073 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF WAKE COUNTY INC — $218,999 over 6y, 1.9% of budgetHUMAN SERVICES NETWORK INC MEALS ON WHEELS SOUTH FLORIDA — $218,016 over 8y, 1.8% of budgetFOOD FOR THOUGHT — $215,000 over 3y, 5.0% of budgetMeals on Wheels of Mercer County Inc — $213,051 over 8y, 3.4% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO — $208,500 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetHERITAGE AREA AGENCY ON AGING — $205,060 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetPEOPLE FOR PEOPLE — $204,036 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS MONTGOMERY COUNTY — $200,954 over 4y, 3.9% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS INC OF TARRANT COUNTY — $199,741 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetAge Well Senior Services Inc — $199,456 over 4y, 2.2% of budgetCHEROKEE COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS — $198,000 over 5y, 9.9% 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 MEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC ↗
  • Who funds Osceola County Council on Aging Inc ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINC ↗
  • Who funds LIFECARE ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds SENIOR NEIGHBORS INC ↗
  • Who funds CHATHAM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS CHICAGO ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO ↗
  • Who funds Meals on Wheels New Mexico ↗
  • Who funds ATHENS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE INC ↗
  • Who funds SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
  • Who funds VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds MAC INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds Meals on Wheels Atlanta Inc ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS DIABLO REGION ↗
  • Who funds Meals on Wheels of Metro Tulsa Inc ↗
  • Who funds Wesley Community Services Organization ↗
  • Who funds NEIGHBORLY CARE NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds CITYMEALS-ON-WHEELS ↗
  • Who funds ASTER AGING INC (FKA EAST VALLEY ADULT RESOURCES INC) ↗
  • Who funds GUERNSEY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston ↗
  • Who funds ST VINCENT SENIOR CITIZEN NUTRITION PROGRAM INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS ORANGE COUNTY NC ↗
  • Who funds Metropolitan Inter-Faith Association ↗
  • Who funds Washington DC Meals on Wheels Inc ↗
  • Who funds MEALS-ON-WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO INC ↗
  • Who funds BLOUNT COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY ↗
  • Who funds Council on Aging Services for Seniors ↗
  • Who funds KENOSHA AREA FAMILY AND AGING SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF NORTHEASTERN PA INC ↗
  • Who funds CENTRAL VERMONT COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
  • Who funds SOURCEPOINT ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF WAKE COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds HUMAN SERVICES NETWORK INC MEALS ON WHEELS SOUTH FLORIDA ↗
  • Who funds FOOD FOR THOUGHT ↗

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.

National Council on A…UsagingPierce Katharine C UwScan Health PlanWellmed Charitable Fo…Isla Carroll Turner F…Carl C Anderson Sr an…Alpha Gamma Delta Fou…The Kroger Co Foundat…Meals on Wheels TexasNextfifty InitiativeHarvard Pilgrim Healt…
National Council on Aging IncVA48.2× affinity37 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Council on Aging Inc · Usaging · Pierce Katharine C Uw · Scan Health Plan · Wellmed Charitable Foundation · Isla Carroll Turner Friendship Trust · Carl C Anderson Sr and Marie Jo Anderson Charitable Foundation · Alpha Gamma Delta Foundation Inc · The Kroger Co Foundation · Meals on Wheels Texas · Nextfifty Initiative · Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation Inc

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 Meals on Wheels America 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
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%6%23%51%90%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 43%
  • Community Renewal Team Inc — 77% of income from government
  • Central Vermont Council On Aging Inc — 74% of income from government
  • Minuteman Senior Services Inc — 73% of income from government
  • Springwell Inc — 68% of income from government
  • Tri-Valley Inc — 68% of income from government
  • Agespan Inc — 57% of income from government
  • Human Services Network Inc Meals On Wheels South Florida — 48% of income from government
  • Council On Aging of Central Oregon — 43% of income from government
  • Elder Care Services Inc — 22% of income from government
  • Osceola County Council on Aging Inc — 22% of income from government
  • Meals On Wheels Etc Inc — 18% of income from government
  • Community Servings Inc — 12% of income from government
  • Marion-Polk Food Share Inc — 5% of income from government
  • Food for Lane County — 5% of income from government
  • Community Services Council of Brevard County Inc — 2% of income from government
  • Sage Eldercare — 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get no government money at all
121report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
6rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

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 790 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines