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

· 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.

$4.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
22
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$497k
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.

Food & Nutrition$21MHuman Services$9.7MHealth$606kCrime & Legal$382kEducation$6k
02FY2025 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 22 grants below total $3,664,235, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,679,495 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,015,260 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

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $108k
  • $50k–250k13 grants · $1.4M
  • $250k+6 grants · $2.2M
$119,252
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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, $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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $119k → 8%Heartland Resources: $217k → 14%Senior Center of Macon: $151k → 14%MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $138k → 15%SHELBY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOC: $198k → 15%OATS INC: $258k → 17%Heartland Resources: $208k → 14%Senior Center of Macon: $140k → 14%Montgovery County Council on Aging: $136k → 15%Shelby County Senior Citizens Ass'n: $188k → 15%OATS INC: $258k → 17%Heartland Resources: $195k → 14%SENIOR CENTER OF MACON: $134k → 14%MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $133k → 15%SHELBY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOCIATION: $181k → 15%OATS Inc: $258k → 17%Heartland Resources: $182k → 14%SENIOR CENTER OF MACON: $125k → 14%Montgomery County Council on Aging: $132k → 15%Shelby County Senior Citizens Association: $166k → 15%OATS INC: $255k → 17%Heartland Resources: $182k → 14%SENIOR CENTER OF MACON: $121k → 14%Montgovery County Council on Aging: $127k → 15%Shelby County Senior Citizens Ass'n: $162k → 15%OATS INC: $250k → 17%Heartland Resources: $177k → 14%Senior Center of Macon: $116k → 14%Montgovery County Council on Aging: $125k → 15%Shelby County Senior Citizens Ass'n: $155k → 15%OATS INC: $236k → 17%HEARTLAND RESOURCES: $164k → 14%Montgovery County Council on Aging: $119k → 15%Shelby County Senior Citizens Ass'n: $147k → 15%OATS INC: $216k → 17%HEARTLAND RESOURCES: $148k → 14%SHELBY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOC: $145k → 15%OATS INC: $212k → 17%HEARTLAND RESOURCES: $145k → 14%Shelby County Senior Citizens Ass'n: $143k → 15%OATS INC: $211k → 17%Hannibal Area Council on Aging: $483k → 12%Hannibal Area Council on Aging: $483k → 12%Hannibal Area Council on Aging: $438k → 12%Hannibal Area Council on Aging: $396k → 12%Hannibal Area Council on Aging: $389k → 12%Hannibal Area Council on Aging: $386k → 12%HANNIBAL AREA COUNCIL ON AGING: $379k → 12%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.
$31M · 22 repeat orgs$150k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
3

Total granted

$31M
$48k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+22%
+101%

Still filing today

95%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $102k 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 & NutritionCrime & LegalOther
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

  • MC
    MONROE CITY SENIOR NUTRITION CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $3.2M · revenue +25% · 54% of their budget
  • HA
    HANNIBAL AREA COUNCIL OF AGING
    7× · 2017–2023 · $3.0M · revenue +22% · 46% of their budget
  • SA
    SENIOR AMERICAN MULTIPURPOSE CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.8M · revenue +1% · 80% of their budget

Funded once

  • YA
    YOUNG AT HEART RESOURCESgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $21k · revenue +101%
  • MT
    Mark Twain Publicly Funded Legal Services
    one grant, 2017 · $21k
  • CO
    CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
    one grant, 2019 · $6k
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
Sherman County Senior Center Inc

To offer a nutrition program for older persons.

—
2
Harrison County Council On Aging

Provide services & meals to the elderly.

Human Services
3
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
4
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
5
Middle Flint Area Council On Aging

Title iii older americans act

—
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
South Royalton Senior Center

Provides meals and services to senior citizens of the comunity and surrounding towns

—
8
Stark County Council On Aging

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

Human Services
9
Washington County Senior Services Inc

To provide congregate meals, home delivered meals, transportation, and information and assistance to senior citizens of washington county, illinois.

—
10
Butler County Council On Aging Inc

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.

Human Services
11
Washington County Senior Citizens

Providing meals to the senior citizens at the meal site and with home deliveries.

Human Services
12
Union County Council On Aging

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.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Nemo Senior Citizens Services Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 26 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.

17
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/23
Grantees still filing
20/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SENIOR AMERICAN MULTIPURPOSE CENTER: $2,840,012 · OtherSENIOR AMERICAN MULTIPURPOSE CENTERNEMO SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICES INC: $2,810,034 · OtherNEMO SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICES INCLINCOLN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $2,507,961 · OtherLINCOLN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGINGSENIOR CITIZENS COMMUNITY CENTER: $1,761,535 · OtherSENIOR CITIZENS COMMUNITY CENTERPike County Council on Aging: $1,327,532 · OtherPike County Council on AgingNORTH EAST COMMUNTIY ACTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES: $882,154 · OtherNORTH EAST COMMUNTIY ACTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIESKNOX CO COUNCIL ON AGING: $735,631 · OtherSCOTLAND COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC: $686,761 · OtherVOYCE: $499,874 · Other+6 more: $921,823 · Other+6 moreHANNIBAL AREA COUNCIL OF AGING: $2,953,500 · Human ServicesHANNIBAL AREA COUNCIL OF AGINGOATS INC: $2,154,922 · Human ServicesOATS INCHeartland Resources Inc: $1,618,052 · Human ServicesHeartland Resources IncSHELBY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOC INC: $1,484,355 · Human ServicesSHELBY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOC INCMontgomery County Council on Aging: $1,121,488 · Human ServicesMontgomery County Council on AgingSENIOR CENTER OF MACON: $1,090,854 · Human ServicesSENIOR CENTER OF MACONWARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $882,573 · Human ServicesWARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGINGSCHUYLER COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING NUTRITION SITE: $857,811 · Human ServicesSCHUYLER COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING NUTRITION SIT…CLARK COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INCORPORATED: $717,836 · Human ServicesCLARK COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INCORPORATEDMONROE CITY SENIOR NUTRITION CENTER: $3,224,352 · Food & NutritionMONROE CITY…LEGAL SERVICES OF EASTERN MISSOURI INC: $361,137 · Crime & Legal
Other$14,973,317Human Services$12,881,391Food & Nutrition$3,224,352Crime & Legal$361,137

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMONROE CITY SENIOR NUTRITION CENTER: $3,224,352 over 9y, 54% of budgetHANNIBAL AREA COUNCIL OF AGING: $2,953,500 over 7y, 46% of budgetSENIOR AMERICAN MULTIPURPOSE CENTER: $2,840,012 over 9y, 80% of budgetNEMO SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICES INC: $2,810,034 over 9y, 51% of budgetLINCOLN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $2,507,961 over 9y, 46% of budgetOATS INC: $2,154,922 over 9y, 1.0% of budgetSENIOR CITIZENS COMMUNITY CENTER: $1,761,535 over 9y, 44% of budgetHeartland Resources Inc: $1,618,052 over 9y, 48% of budgetSHELBY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOC INC: $1,484,355 over 9y, 43% of budgetPike County Council on Aging: $1,327,532 over 9y, 88% of budgetMontgomery County Council on Aging: $1,121,488 over 9y, 65% of budgetSENIOR CENTER OF MACON: $1,090,854 over 9y, 85% of budgetWARREN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $882,573 over 9y, 54% of budgetNORTH EAST COMMUNTIY ACTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES: $882,154 over 9y, 0.9% of budgetSCHUYLER COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING NUTRITION SITE: $857,811 over 9y, 66% of budgetKNOX CO COUNCIL ON AGING: $735,631 over 9y, 56% of budgetCLARK COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INCORPORATED: $717,836 over 9y, 97% of budgetSCOTLAND COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC: $686,761 over 9y, 58% of budgetVOYCE: $499,874 over 9y, 8.5% of budgetSENIOR ADULT SERVICES INC: $497,669 over 8y, 67% of budgetLEGAL SERVICES OF EASTERN MISSOURI INC: $361,137 over 9y, 0.5% of budgetHOMECARE OF MID-MISSOURI: $274,000 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetYOUNG AT HEART RESOURCES: $21,351 over 1y, 0.6% 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 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 ↗

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.

Mfa Oil FoundationUnited Way of Greater…The Minneapolis Found…Amazonsmile Foundation
Mfa Oil FoundationMO19.7× affinity7 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Mfa Oil Foundation · United Way of Greater St Louis Inc · The Minneapolis Foundation · 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 Northeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Northeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    15report 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 26 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 Northeast Missouri 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