Skip to content

· Public charity

Purchase Area Development District Inc

The purchase area development district (padd) offers a diverse collection of services, touching every aspect of life in the purchase region.

$2.0M
Granted FY2021
12
Grants FY2021
1
States reached
$462k
Largest
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 2021.

Human Services$6.1MFood & Nutrition$2.4MCrime & Legal$90kHealth$12kCommunity Improvement$2k
02FY2021 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2021

  • Under $10k1 grant · $1k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $26k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $836k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.1M
$152,956
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PADUCAH-MCCRACKEN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS$461,921
MURRAY-CALLOWAY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS$332,681
MAYFIELD-GRAVES COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS$302,421
WEST KENTUCKY ALLIED SERVICES INC$188,644
SENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY$162,489
HELP AT HOME$152,956
BALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS$92,546
HICKMAN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS$90,794
MARSHALL COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS$89,138
CARLISLE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS$59,163
KENTUCKY LEGAL AID$26,278
GRAVES COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT$1,142
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 (FY17–21, $3.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 20%. 16% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 20%BALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $93k → 15%MURRAY-CALLOWAY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $333k → 19%SENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY: $162k → 29%BALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $90k → 15%MURRAY-CALLOWAY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $256k → 19%SENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY: $106k → 29%BALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $80k → 15%MAYFIELD-GRAVES COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $302k → 19%MURRAY-CALLOWAY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $244k → 19%SENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY: $104k → 29%BALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $75k → 15%MAYFIELD-GRAVES COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $253k → 19%MURRAY-CALLOWAY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $238k → 19%SENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY: $100k → 29%BALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $73k → 15%MAYFIELD-GRAVES COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $246k → 19%MURRAY-CALLOWAY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $221k → 19%SENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY: $90k → 29%MAYFIELD-GRAVES COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $240k → 19%MAYFIELD-GRAVES COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS: $233k → 19%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.
$8.6M · 13 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2021, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
0

Total granted

$8.6M
$0

Still filing today

46%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • PC
    Paducah-McCracken County Senio Citizens Inc
    5× · 2017–2021 · $1.8M · revenue +7% · 36% of their budget
  • WK
    WEST KENTUCKY ALLIED SERVICES
    5× · 2017–2021 · $1.4M · revenue +55%
  • MC
    MURRAY-CALLOWAY CO SENIOR CITIZENS INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $1.3M · revenue +160% · 60% of their budget

Funded once

    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
    Harlan County Senior Services Inc

    Offers programs & services to older persons such as meals, house keeping, yard work, public transportation, and social activities.

    Human Services
    2
    Sherman County Senior Center Inc

    To offer a nutrition program for older persons.

    —
    3
    Washington County Senior Citizens

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

    Human Services
    4
    Harrison County Council On Aging

    Provide services & meals to the elderly.

    Human Services
    5
    Southeast Grayson Senior Center

    Senior Center facility for the local Meals on Wheels production.

    Human Services
    6
    Southside Senior Citizen Center

    Adults day care

    Human Services
    7
    South Royalton Senior Center

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

    —
    8
    Franklin County Senior Citizens Inc

    To keep senior citizens in their own home by providing meals, transportation, housework, yardwork, activities, health clinics, entertainment, referrals, and so forth for them.

    Human Services
    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
    Washington County Senior Services Inc

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

    —
    11
    Moscow Senior Citizens Inc

    We help between 10 and 20 Senior Citizens on a weekly basis.

    —
    12
    Harrison County Commission On Aging Inc

    Promote participation of all citizens in health, welfare, recreational, civic cultural and education agencies and organizations of the senior citizens of the harrison county commission on aging by acting as coorinators and grantee to…

    Human Services
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Murray-Calloway Co Senior Citizens Inc; the most unlike its peers is Paducah-McCracken County Senio Citizens Inc. 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

    9 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. 9 of the 13 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.

    8
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    3
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    6/9
    Grantees still filing
    6/9
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    Paducah-McCracken County Senio Citizens Inc: $1,750,427 · OtherPaducah-McCracken County Senio Citizens IncWEST KENTUCKY ALLIED SERVICES: $1,437,596 · OtherWEST KENTUCKY ALLIED SERVICESHELP AT HOME: $569,185 · OtherHELP AT HOMEMARSHALL COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $564,894 · OtherMARSHALL COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INCHICKMAN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $360,742 · OtherHICKMAN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INCCARLISLE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $268,760 · Other+3 more: $104,261 · OtherMURRAY-CALLOWAY CO SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $1,290,687 · Human ServicesMURRAY-CALLOWAY CO SENIOR CITIZENS INCMAYFIELD GRAVES CO SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $1,274,246 · Human ServicesMAYFIELD GRAVES CO SENIOR CITIZENS INCSENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY INC: $562,543 · Human ServicesSENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY INCBALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $410,571 · Human ServicesBALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC
    Other$5,055,865Human Services$3,538,047

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

    25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPaducah-McCracken County Senio Citizens Inc: $1,750,427 over 5y, 36% of budgetWEST KENTUCKY ALLIED SERVICES: $1,437,596 over 5y, 13% of budgetMURRAY-CALLOWAY CO SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $1,290,687 over 5y, 60% of budgetMAYFIELD GRAVES CO SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $1,274,246 over 5y, 78% of budgetMARSHALL COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $564,894 over 5y, 64% of budgetSENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY INC: $562,543 over 5y, 88% of budgetBALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $410,571 over 5y, 79% of budgetHICKMAN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $360,742 over 5y, 70% of budgetCARLISLE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $268,760 over 5y, 68% 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 Paducah-McCracken County Senio Citizens Inc ↗
    • Who funds WEST KENTUCKY ALLIED SERVICES ↗
    • Who funds MURRAY-CALLOWAY CO SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
    • Who funds MAYFIELD GRAVES CO SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
    • Who funds MARSHALL COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
    • Who funds SENIOR CITIZENS OF FULTON COUNTY INC ↗
    • Who funds BALLARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
    • Who funds HICKMAN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
    • Who funds CARLISLE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗

    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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

    Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: 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 Purchase Area Development District Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Purchase Area Development District Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

    2025
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%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 · 0–10%
      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 13 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2022) is on record and reports $3.3M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2021, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Purchase Area Development District’s filings →

      More from the funding graph