· Public charity
Northeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging
The mission of the organization is to help older adults maintain maximum independence and dignity in a home environment.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 22 grants below total $3,664,235 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,679,495 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,015,260 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 · FY2025
- $10k–50k3 grants · $108k
- $50k–250k13 grants · $1.4M
- $250k+6 grants · $2.2M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HANNIBAL AREA COUNCIL ON AGING | $496,803 |
| MONROE CITY SENIOR NUTRITION CENTER | $450,582 |
| NEMO SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICES | $345,534 |
| SENIOR AMERICANS MULTIPURPOSE CENTER | $306,147 |
| LINCOLN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $305,354 |
| OATS INC | $250,000 |
| SHELBY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOCIATION | $181,202 |
| HEARTLAND RESOURCES | $145,402 |
| SENIOR CENTER OF MACON | $134,223 |
| MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $133,344 |
| WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $119,252 |
| PURFOODS LLC DBA MOM'S MEALS | $101,857 |
| SCOTLAND COUNTY SENIOR CENTER | $95,879 |
| KNOX COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $95,765 |
| CLARK COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $90,833 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $12.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 93% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
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.
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.
22 repeat relationships — 20 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $102k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- MCMONROE CITY SENIOR NUTRITION CENTER9× · 2017–2025 · $3.2M · revenue +25% · 54% of their budget
- HAHANNIBAL AREA COUNCIL OF AGING7× · 2017–2023 · $3.0M · revenue +22% · 46% of their budget
- SASENIOR AMERICAN MULTIPURPOSE CENTER9× · 2017–2025 · $2.8M · revenue +18% · 80% of their budget
Funded once
- YAYOUNG AT HEART RESOURCESgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $21k · revenue +101%
- MTMark Twain Publicly Funded Legal Servicesone grant, 2017 · $21k
- COCURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIone grant, 2019 · $6k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
To offer a nutrition program for older persons.
Provide services & meals to the elderly.
Provide services to local seniors to improve their quality of life and assist them in remaining in their homes
Provides senior center and congregate and home delivered meals, homemaker services allowing seniors to remain in their homes.
Title iii older americans act
Senior citizen programs through the area agency on aging which provides a center, services, congregate meals and home delivery meals.
Provides meals and services to senior citizens of the comunity and surrounding towns
Provide elderly services to allow persons to stay in their own homes
To provide congregate meals, home delivered meals, transportation, and information and assistance to senior citizens of washington county, illinois.
We prepare meals for senior citizens and provide a place for recreational activities and fellowship. meals are served in our building or are delivered to home-bound individuals.
Providing meals to the senior citizens at the meal site and with home deliveries.
To promote the mental social and physical welfare of seniors in Union County SC. To operate senior centers providing group dining home delivered meals transportation homemaker services and material support to seniors 60 and older.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nemo Senior Citizens Services Inc and the most unlike its peers is Voyce. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 46 years old; the field is 22. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
23 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 23 of the 26 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 MONROE CITY SENIOR NUTRITION CENTER ↗
- Who funds HANNIBAL AREA COUNCIL OF AGING ↗
- Who funds SENIOR AMERICAN MULTIPURPOSE CENTER ↗
- Who funds NEMO SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds LINCOLN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
- Who funds OATS INC ↗
- Who funds SENIOR CITIZENS COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds Heartland Resources Inc ↗
- Who funds SHELBY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOC INC ↗
- Who funds Pike County Council on Aging ↗
- Who funds Montgomery County Council on Aging ↗
- Who funds SENIOR CENTER OF MACON ↗
- Who funds WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
- Who funds NORTH EAST COMMUNTIY ACTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES ↗
- Who funds SCHUYLER COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING NUTRITION SITE ↗
- Who funds KNOX CO COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
- Who funds CLARK COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds SCOTLAND COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds VOYCE ↗
- Who funds SENIOR ADULT SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds LEGAL SERVICES OF EASTERN MISSOURI INC ↗
- Who funds HOMECARE OF MID-MISSOURI ↗
- Who funds YOUNG AT HEART RESOURCES ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Mfa Oil Foundation · United Way of Greater St Louis Inc · The Minneapolis Foundation · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Northeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging 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.
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.