Skip to content
Philadelphia Corporation for Aging at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Philadelphia Corporation for Aging

Pca's mission is to improve the quality of life for older philadelphians and people with disabilities and assist them in achieving their maximum level of health, independence, and productivity.

$186k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$125k
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$375kHuman Services$91kHousing & Shelter$21kEmployment$20kHealth$18kCrime & Legal$15kCivil Rights$10k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $61k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $125k
$47,475
Median grant
1
States reached
$63M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CARING FOR FRIENDS$125,000
KLEINLIFE$47,475
CHESTNUT HILL MEALS ON WHEELS$13,586
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 (FY17–19, $26k) land where the poverty rate runs at 22%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%LGBT ELDER INITIATIVE: $5k → 22%UNITED POLISH AMERICAN SOCIAL SERVICES: $7k → 22%UNITED POLISH AMERICAN SOCIAL SERVICES: $7k → 22%UNITED POLISH AMERICAN SOCIAL SERVICES: $7k → 22%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$514k · 10 repeat orgs$36k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +123% since the first grant, against -97% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
5

Total granted

$514k
$36k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+123%
-97%

Still filing today

60%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’25
Food & NutritionHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsCrime & 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

  • CARING FOR FRIENDS
    4× · 2017–2025 · $289k · revenue +577%
  • CH
    CHESTNUT HILL MEALS ON WHEELS
    4× · 2017–2025 · $21k · revenue +123%
  • SENIORLAW CENTER
    3× · 2017–2019 · $15k · revenue +269%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $15k
  • KM
    KOSHER MEALS ON WHEELS (NORTH & NORTH EAST)
    one grant, 2017 · $9k
  • LE
    LGBT ELDER INITIATIVE
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue -97%
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 15 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CARING FOR FRIENDS: $288,900 · Food & NutritionCARING FOR FRIENDSCHESTNUT HILL MEALS ON WHEELS: $21,086 · Food & NutritionCHESTNUT HILL MEALS ON WHEELSIndividual grant recipient: $21,000 · OtherIndividual grant reci…ALZHEIMER'S ASSOC DELAWARE VALLEY CHAPT: $18,250 · OtherALZHEIMER'S ASSOC DEL…Individual grant recipient: $14,900 · OtherIndividual grant reci…Individual grant recipient: $11,700 · OtherIndividual grant reci…CENTER FOR ADVOCACY FOR THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE ELDERLY: $10,000 · OtherCENTER FOR ADVOCACY F…RALSTON CENTER: $10,000 · OtherRALSTON CENTERKOSHER MEALS ON WHEELS (NORTH & NORTH EAST): $8,700 · OtherKOSHER MEALS ON WHEEL…Individual grant recipient: $5,000 · Other+1 more: $2,500 · OtherRAYMOND AND MIRIAM KLEIN JCC (D/B/A KLEINLIFE): $96,975 · Recreation & SportsRAYMOND AND MIRIAM …UNITED POLISH AMERICAN SOCIAL SERVICES INC: $21,000 · Human ServicesLGBT ELDER INITIATIVE: $5,350 · Human ServicesSENIORLAW CENTER: $15,000 · Crime & Legal
Food & Nutrition$309,986Other$102,050Recreation & Sports$96,975Human Services$26,350Crime & Legal$15,000

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 budgetCARING FOR FRIENDS: $288,900 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetRAYMOND AND MIRIAM KLEIN JCC (D/B/A KLEINLIFE): $96,975 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetCHESTNUT HILL MEALS ON WHEELS: $21,086 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetSENIORLAW CENTER: $15,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCENTER FOR ADVOCACY FOR THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE ELDERLY: $10,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetLGBT ELDER INITIATIVE: $5,350 over 1y, 2.9% 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 CARING FOR FRIENDS ↗
  • Who funds RAYMOND AND MIRIAM KLEIN JCC (D/B/A KLEINLIFE) ↗
  • Who funds CHESTNUT HILL MEALS ON WHEELS ↗
  • Who funds UNITED POLISH AMERICAN SOCIAL SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds SENIORLAW CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR ADVOCACY FOR THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE ELDERLY ↗
  • Who funds LGBT ELDER INITIATIVE ↗

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.

The Sarah Ralston Fou…The Philadelphia Foun…Union Benevolent Asso…Henrietta Tower Wurts…W W Smith Charitable …Henry Dolfinger 2 Tru…United Way of Greater…The Pfizer Foundation…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Sarah Ralston FoundationPA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Sarah Ralston Foundation · The Philadelphia Foundation · Union Benevolent Association · Henrietta Tower Wurts Memorial Foundation · W W Smith Charitable Trust · Henry Dolfinger 2 Trust Uw · United Way of Greater Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · 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 Philadelphia Corporation for Aging funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Philadelphia Corporation for Aging. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 15 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 Philadelphia Corporation for 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