Skip to content
Midland Area Agency on Aging at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Midland Area Agency on Aging

To ensure coordinated, accessible services for older persons and persons with disabilities to live independent, meaningful, and dignified lives.

$3.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$917k
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 2025.

Human Services$14MHealth$5.8MCrime & Legal$606kEmployment$45k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $49k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $241k
  • $250k+6 grants · $3.3M
$285,149
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORP$917,249
BCMW COMMUNITY SERVICES$619,294
COMPREHENSIVE CONNECTIONS$598,924
HEARTLAND HUMAN SERVICES$515,971
MIDLAND AAA$313,572
EFFINGHAM COUNTY COMMUNITY ON AGING$285,149
STOP WOMAN ABUSE NOW SWAN$165,696
LAND OF LINCOLN ASSISTANCE$75,030
ADDUS HEALTHCARE$36,473
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACCESS$12,546
CATHOLIC CHARITIES$7,500
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, $7.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 15% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORP: $917k → 9%STOP WOMAN ABUSE NOW SWAN: $166k → 14%STOP WOMAN ABUSE NOW: $144k → 15%CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORP: $810k → 9%STOP WOMAN ABUSE NOW SWAN: $90k → 14%STOP WOMAN ABUSE NOW: $120k → 15%CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $760k → 9%AGE OPTIONS: $15k → 14%Stop Woman Abuse Now: $113k → 15%CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $674k → 9%STOP WOMAN ABUSE NOW: $107k → 15%CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $665k → 9%Stop Woman Abuse Now: $100k → 15%CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $619k → 9%STOP WOMAN ABUSE NOW: $92k → 15%CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $543k → 9%STOP WOMAN ABUSE NOW: $88k → 15%CEFS Economic Opportunity Corp: $521k → 9%CEFS Economic Opportunity Corp: $463k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$20M · 12 repeat orgs$95k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +34% since the first grant, against +28% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
6

Total granted

$20M
$95k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+28%

Still filing today

67%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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 ServicesCommunity ImprovementHealthCrime & LegalCivil RightsOther
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

  • CE
    CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $6.0M · revenue +34%
  • BC
    BCMW COMMUNITY SERVICES INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $4.0M · revenue +3%
  • JC
    JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $3.6M · revenue +116%

Funded once

  • AW
    ASI Works
    one grant, 2017 · $45k
  • CR
    COVID RELIEF FROM AGE OPTIONS
    one grant, 2020 · $26k
  • AI
    AGEOPTIONS INC (FKA SUBURBAN AREA AGENCY ON AGING)graduated
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue +27%
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
Washington County Commission On Aging Inc/Area Agency On Aging

To plan and coordinate systems of services which help older americans, those with disabilities regardless of age and caregivers, maintain their independence through a variety of programs. these programs include, but are not limited to,…

—
3
East Central Il Area Agency On Aging Inc

Our mission is to lead and advocate for inclusive resources and services that empower the optimal aging of east central illinois' diverse older adults, individuals with disabilities, and their care partners.

—
4
Capital Area Agency On Aging Inc

The agency's mission is to advocate and provide services to enhance the quality of life for older adults.

Human Services
5
Community Action of Southern Kentucky Inc

We team with Community partners to provide human services with dignity and respect, empowering people in Southern Kentucky to achieve stability and economic security.

—
6
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
7
Illinois Valley Economic Development Corporation

Illinois valley economic development corporation is organized as a charitable and educational organization that exists to serve the community, through programs to assist low-income, disabled, elderly, and individuals and families in need.…

Human Services
8
Southwest Kansas Area Agency on Aging Inc

To serve and enhance the lives of older people and their families in Southwest Kansas.

—
9
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
10
Western Montana Area Vi Agency On Aging Inc

The older American act intends that the area agency on aging shall be the leader relative to all aging issuers on behalf of all older persons in the planning and service area. This means that the area agency shall proactively carry out,…

—
11
Cornerstone Montgomery

Empowering people living with mental health and substance use disorders to thrive in their community through collaboration, treatment, education and advocacy.

—
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 Ageoptions Inc (Fka Suburban Area Agency On Aging); the most unlike its peers is Stopping Woman Abuse Now (Swan). 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

10 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. 10 of the 18 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
10/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $5,972,435 · Human ServicesCEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATIONStopping Woman Abuse Now (SWAN): $1,019,263 · Human ServicesStopping Woman Abuse Now (SWAN)+1 more: $15,000 · Human ServicesJEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES INC: $3,588,017 · OtherJEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE…EFFINGHAM CITY COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $1,332,944 · OtherEFFINGHAM CITY COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGI…Access: $760,005 · OtherAccessMIDLAND AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $410,807 · OtherMIDLAND AREA AGENCY ON AGINGIndividual grant recipient: $378,155 · OtherIndividual grant recipientADDUS HOMECARE - CHICAGO: $318,663 · Other+5 more: $83,176 · OtherBCMW COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $4,044,128 · Community ImprovementBCMW COMMUNITY SERVICE…HEARTLAND HUMAN SERVICES: $1,891,487 · HealthHEARTLAND …LAND OF LINCOLN LEGAL AID INC: $606,406 · Crime & LegalOPPORTUNITIES FOR ACCESS: $6,036 · Civil Rights
Human Services$7,006,698Other$6,871,767Community Improvement$4,044,128Health$1,891,487Crime & Legal$606,406Civil Rights$6,036

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $5,972,435 over 9y, 3.7% of budgetBCMW COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $4,044,128 over 9y, 5.1% of budgetJEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES INC: $3,588,017 over 9y, 12% of budgetHEARTLAND HUMAN SERVICES: $1,891,487 over 9y, 21% of budgetEFFINGHAM CITY COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $1,332,944 over 9y, 12% of budgetStopping Woman Abuse Now (SWAN): $1,019,263 over 9y, 5.4% of budgetLAND OF LINCOLN LEGAL AID INC: $606,406 over 9y, 0.9% of budgetMIDLAND AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $410,807 over 2y, 6.9% of budgetAGEOPTIONS INC (FKA SUBURBAN AREA AGENCY ON AGING): $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOPPORTUNITIES FOR ACCESS: $6,036 over 2y, 0.7% 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 CEFS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds BCMW COMMUNITY SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds HEARTLAND HUMAN SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds EFFINGHAM CITY COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING ↗
  • Who funds Stopping Woman Abuse Now (SWAN) ↗
  • Who funds LAND OF LINCOLN LEGAL AID INC ↗
  • Who funds MIDLAND AREA AGENCY ON AGING ↗
  • Who funds AGEOPTIONS INC (FKA SUBURBAN AREA AGENCY ON AGING) ↗
  • Who funds OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACCESS ↗

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.

United Way of Effingh…Southeastern Illinois…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
United Way of Effingham Cnty IncIL15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Effingham Cnty Inc · Southeastern Illinois Community Foundation · 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 Midland Area Agency on Aging funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Midland Area Agency on Aging. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 18 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 Midland Area 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