Skip to content
Meals on Wheels America at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$5.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
174
Grants FY2025still arriving
39
States reached
$640k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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$35MHuman Services$28MHealth$1.6MCommunity Improvement$1.4MHousing & Shelter$1.2MEmployment$400kRecreation & Sports$397kPhilanthropy$237kOther$0
02FY2025 · 174 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 174 grants below total $4,354,617, the rows itemized in this filing. The $5,658,913 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,304,296 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 $10k59 grants · $381k
  • $10k–50k103 grants · $2.1M
  • $50k–250k11 grants · $1.3M
  • $250k+1 grant · $640k
$13,438
Median grant
39
States reached
$64M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC AKA MEALS ON WHEELS CENTRAL TEXAS$640,000
MEALS ON WHEELS PLUS OF MANATEE$185,684
OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING - MEALS ON WHEELS OSCEOLA$180,000
MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLAND$164,842
SENIOR NEIGHBORS INC$160,319
NORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING$122,000
FAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER$113,891
UNION COUNTY SENIOR NUTRITION$80,525
MEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO$77,938
CHATHAM COUNTY AGING SERVICES$69,000
MEALS ON WHEELS OF THE SANDHILLS INC$66,610
MEALS ON WHEELS INC OF TARRANT COUNTY ENDOWMENT FUND$53,438
SENIOR SERVICES INC$47,000
MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL INDIANA$46,885
SENIOR CITIZENS INC$45,203
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, $22.5M) 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BERKS ENCORE: $103k → 11%LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF MINNESOTA: $109k → 14%MEALS ON WHEELS DIABLO REGION: $112k → 9%SENIOR CONCERNS: $140k → 10%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO: $166k → 11%BAY RIDGE CENTER: $158k → 20%PENINSULA VOLUNTEERS INC: $117k → 7%HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION: $157k → 14%MEALS ON WHEELS WEST: $117k → 14%ASTER AGING INC: $108k → 11%FAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER: $114k → 9%CATHOLIC CHARITIES SENIOR DININGMOWS: $107k → 11%MEALS ON WHEELS NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS: $123k → 10%COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION OF SOUTH TEXAS: $128k → 25%AGING MATTERS IN BREVARD: $133k → 10%SENIOR RESOURCE ASSOCIATION: $130k → 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%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%FAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER: $113k → 9%CARELINK: $104k → 17%NEIGHBORLY CARE NETWORK: $115k → 12%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $200k → 13%NORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING: $122k → 21%ELDER SERVICES OF THE MERRIMACK VALLEY: $105k → 10%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING - MEALS ON WHEELS OSCEOLA: $180k → 13%MEALS ON WHEELS ATLANTA: $199k → 13%COMMUNITY SERVINGS INC: $109k → 16%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $169k → 13%ETHOS: $109k → 16%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $153k → 13%SPRINGWELL INC: $128k → 8%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $152k → 13%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $126k → 13%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $120k → 13%MEALS ON WHEELS OF SOUTHWEST OH & NORTHERN KY: $136k → 16%OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING: $105k → 13%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.

Which US states its 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
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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$66M · 524 repeat orgs$8.4M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

524 repeat relationships: 150 still active in FY2025, 374 since wound down; 23 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

524
266

Total granted

$66M
$8.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+12%

Still filing today

90%
76%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $336k 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 ServicesFood & NutritionHealthCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyOther
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 AND MORE INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $6.4M · revenue +6%
  • OC
    Osceola County Council on Aging Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +36%
  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · 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%
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
Council On Aging & Human Services

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

Human Services
2
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
3
Jefferson County Area Agency on Aging

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

—
4
Meals On Wheels

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

Human Services
5
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
6
Stark County Council On Aging

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

Human Services
7
Meals On Wheels of Somerset County Inc

Providing meals to the elderly and needy

Food & Nutrition
8
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
9
Sherman County Senior Center Inc

To offer a nutrition program for older persons.

—
10
We Care Senior Meals Program

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

—
11
Senior Nutrition Services Reg Iv Inc

Provide meals to elderly in need.

—
12
Meal a Day

Provide 115+ local shut-in seniors with hot lunches 5 days a week

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Senior Hub Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

699 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. 699 of the 814 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.

14
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
147
Early backer (in before they grew)
682/699
Grantees still filing
520/699
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC: $6,425,562 · Food & NutritionMEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INCMEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINC: $1,182,287 · Food & NutritionMEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINCLIFECARE ALLIANCE: $1,026,817 · Food & NutritionLIFECARE ALLIANCE+45 more: $8,467,395 · Food & Nutrition+45 moreOsceola County Council on Aging Inc: $1,505,880 · Human ServicesOsceola County Council on Aging IncNORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $659,294 · Human ServicesFAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER INC: $606,796 · Human Services+78 more: $13,565,411 · Human Services+78 moreSENIOR NEIGHBORS INC: $1,133,392 · OtherSENIOR NEIGHBORS INCCHATHAM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $656,029 · OtherMEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC: $461,861 · OtherMEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO: $441,839 · Other+57 more: $9,819,493 · Other+57 moreVISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $344,016 · 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$17,102,061Human Services$16,337,381Other$12,512,614Health$1,020,014Recreation & Sports$483,579Philanthropy$172,670Education$116,577

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC: $6,425,562 over 9y, 7.0% of budgetOsceola County Council on Aging Inc: $1,505,880 over 9y, 2.4% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINC: $1,182,287 over 9y, 1.7% of budgetSENIOR NEIGHBORS INC: $1,133,392 over 9y, 3.9% of budgetLIFECARE ALLIANCE: $1,026,817 over 9y, 1.1% of budgetNORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $659,294 over 6y, 9.9% of budgetCHATHAM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $656,029 over 9y, 6.4% of budgetFAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER INC: $606,796 over 8y, 1.1% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC: $461,861 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO: $441,839 over 9y, 1.5% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS CHICAGO: $409,826 over 6y, 9.9% of budgetSENIOR CITIZENS INC: $361,465 over 9y, 3.0% of budgetMeals on Wheels New Mexico: $358,493 over 6y, 5.2% of budgetATHENS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $357,474 over 9y, 4.1% of budgetVISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $344,016 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE INC: $342,118 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS DIABLO REGION: $317,231 over 8y, 3.3% of budgetMAC INCORPORATED: $303,226 over 9y, 1.5% of budgetMeals on Wheels of Metro Tulsa Inc: $299,135 over 6y, 1.7% of budgetNEIGHBORLY CARE NETWORK INC: $288,480 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetMeals on Wheels Atlanta Inc: $282,135 over 7y, 1.7% of budgetASTER AGING INC (FKA EAST VALLEY ADULT RESOURCES INC): $278,299 over 7y, 3.5% of budgetMetropolitan Inter-Faith Association: $276,937 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetCITYMEALS-ON-WHEELS: $272,135 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS PLUS OF MANATEE INC: $269,075 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetWesley Community Services Organization: $269,021 over 6y, 1.6% of budgetKENOSHA AREA FAMILY AND AGING SERVICES INC: $262,335 over 3y, 5.4% 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 budgetMEALS ON WHEELS ORANGE COUNTY NC: $258,057 over 8y, 7.9% of budgetST VINCENT SENIOR CITIZEN NUTRITION PROGRAM INC: $257,831 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetWashington DC Meals on Wheels Inc: $254,085 over 9y, 18% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS INC OF TARRANT COUNTY: $253,179 over 8y, 0.7% of budgetSOURCEPOINT: $251,573 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF NORTHEASTERN PA INC: $248,510 over 8y, 6.0% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO: $244,500 over 4y, 0.5% 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 budgetSENIOR SERVICES INC: $237,500 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetCouncil on Aging Services for Seniors: $237,362 over 4y, 2.4% of budgetCHEROKEE COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $232,500 over 6y, 9.9% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF WAKE COUNTY INC: $231,109 over 7y, 1.9% of budgetCENTRAL VERMONT COUNCIL ON AGING INC: $225,736 over 5y, 2.2% of budgetHERITAGE AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $219,542 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetMeals on Wheels of Mercer County Inc: $219,453 over 9y, 3.4% of budgetHUMAN SERVICES NETWORK INC MEALS ON WHEELS SOUTH FLORIDA: $218,016 over 8y, 1.8% of budgetLUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICE OF MINNESOTA: $215,903 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetFOOD FOR THOUGHT: $215,000 over 3y, 5.0% 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 AND MORE INC ↗
  • Who funds Osceola County Council on Aging Inc ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL MARYLANDINC ↗
  • Who funds SENIOR NEIGHBORS INC ↗
  • Who funds LIFECARE ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds NORTH STAR COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
  • Who funds CHATHAM COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY SERVICE ROCHESTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS CHICAGO ↗
  • Who funds SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
  • Who funds Meals on Wheels New Mexico ↗
  • Who funds ATHENS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
  • Who funds VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE INC ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS DIABLO REGION ↗
  • Who funds MAC INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds Meals on Wheels of Metro Tulsa Inc ↗
  • Who funds NEIGHBORLY CARE NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds Meals on Wheels Atlanta Inc ↗
  • Who funds ASTER AGING INC (FKA EAST VALLEY ADULT RESOURCES INC) ↗
  • Who funds Metropolitan Inter-Faith Association ↗
  • Who funds CITYMEALS-ON-WHEELS ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS PLUS OF MANATEE INC ↗
  • Who funds Wesley Community Services Organization ↗
  • Who funds KENOSHA AREA FAMILY AND AGING SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds GUERNSEY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS ORANGE COUNTY NC ↗
  • Who funds ST VINCENT SENIOR CITIZEN NUTRITION PROGRAM INC ↗
  • Who funds Washington DC Meals on Wheels Inc ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS INC OF TARRANT COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds SOURCEPOINT ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF NORTHEASTERN PA INC ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO ↗
  • Who funds MEALS-ON-WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO INC ↗
  • Who funds BLOUNT COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY ↗
  • Who funds SENIOR SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds Council on Aging Services for Seniors ↗

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.

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

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 Meals on Wheels America funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Meals on Wheels America. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%6%23%51%90%funder's 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
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.

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 814 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 Meals on Wheels America’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