Skip to content
Region II Commission on Services to the Aging at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Region II Commission on Services to the Aging

The area agency on aging's mission is to improve conditions affecting the lives of the older adults and individuals with disabilities in the region by: identifying concerns of those people and developing a comprehensive and coordinated network of services in hillsdale, jackson and lenawee counties that will enable older persons and…

$2.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.1M
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Human Services$11MCrime & Legal$363k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $2,623,218, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,816,727 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $193,509 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–50k5 grants · $141k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $211k
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.3M
$63,256
Median grant
1
States reached
$20M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JACKSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT ON AGING$1,077,581
LENAWEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT ON AGING$823,892
HILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER$369,677
MICHIGAN ADVOCACY PROGRAM$147,651
SENIOR RESOURCES OF WEST MICHIGAN$63,256
REGION IV AREA AGENCY ON AGING$38,045
CATHOLIC CHARITIES$36,193
BRANCH-ST JOSEPH AREA AGENCY ON AGING (IIIC)$29,768
CAREWELL SERVICES REGION 3B AREA AGENCY ON AGING$20,000
DISABILITY CONNECTIONS$17,155
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 (FY21–25, $2.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF JACKSON: $37k → 13%CAREWELL SERVICES REGION 3B AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $20k → 14%HILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER INC: $481k → 14%SENIOR RESOURCES OF WEST MICHIGAN: $63k → 15%REGION IV AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $38k → 15%CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $36k → 13%HILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER INC: $423k → 14%HILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER INC: $390k → 14%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF JACKSON: $36k → 13%HILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER: $370k → 14%HILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER INC: $358k → 14%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF JACKSON: $31k → 13%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF JACKSON: $26k → 13%DISABILITY CONNECTIONS: $17k → 13%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$14M · 5 repeat orgs$168k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +13% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
5

Total granted

$14M
$168k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
0%

Still filing today

60%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $168k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesCrime & 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

  • HC
    HILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $2.0M · revenue +13%
  • MA
    Michigan Advocacy Program
    5× · 2021–2025 · $511k · revenue +53%
  • CC
    Catholic Charities of Jackson
    5× · 2021–2025 · $166k · revenue +7%

Funded once

  • SR
    Senior Resources of West Michigan
    one grant, 2025 · $63k · revenue 0%
  • RI
    REGION IV AREA AGENCY ON AGING INC (WITH FOSTER GRANDPARENTS PROGRAM)
    one grant, 2025 · $38k · revenue 0%
  • BH
    BRANCH HILLSDALE ST JOSEPH CHA
    one grant, 2025 · $30k
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 10 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COUNTY OF JACKSON MICHIGAN DEPT ON AGING: $6,283,731 · OtherCOUNTY OF JACKSON MICHIGAN DEPT ON AGINGLENAWEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT ON AGING: $4,610,272 · OtherLENAWEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT ON AGING+1 more: $29,768 · OtherHILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER INC: $2,021,754 · Human ServicesHILLSDALE COUNTY SE…Catholic Charities of Jackson: $166,068 · Human ServicesCatholic Charities …+4 more: $138,456 · Human Services+4 moreMichigan Advocacy Program: $510,579 · Crime & Legal
Other$10,923,771Human Services$2,326,278Crime & Legal$510,579

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 budgetHILLSDALE COUNTY SENIOR SERVICES CENTER INC: $2,021,754 over 5y, 17% of budgetMichigan Advocacy Program: $510,579 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetCatholic Charities of Jackson: $166,068 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetSenior Resources of West Michigan: $63,256 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetREGION IV AREA AGENCY ON AGING INC (WITH FOSTER GRANDPARENTS PROGRAM): $38,045 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetREGION 3B AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDISABILITY CONNECTIONS INC: $17,155 over 1y, 1.4% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Region II Commission on Services to the Aging funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Region II Commission on Services to the Aging. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 10 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 Region II Commission on Services to the 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