· Public charity
Southeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging Inc
Develop a coordinated delivery system of services to assist and enable older missourians to remain in their homes and enhance their quality of life.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 55% of SOUTHEAST MISSOURI AREA AGENCY ON AGING INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k3 grants · $100k
- $50k–250k26 grants · $3.9M
- $250k+4 grants · $1.5M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BUTLER COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $464,535 |
| SOUTHEAST MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION | $455,000 |
| CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNCIL ON AGING | $315,044 |
| CITY OF PARK HILLS MISSOURI | $257,102 |
| SENIOR SERVICES OF CHAFFEE MO INC | $245,596 |
| EAST MISSOURI ACTION AGENCY INC | $219,711 |
| RIPLEY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB | $213,480 |
| CHARLESTON NUTRITION CENTER INC | $210,923 |
| STODDARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS | $208,727 |
| CARTER COUNTY SENIOR CENTER | $201,581 |
| THE EAST PRAIRIE NUTRITION CENTER | $183,645 |
| WILLIAMSVILLE AREA ASSOCIATION OF AGING | $178,214 |
| CITY OF BONNE TERRE MISSOURI | $175,224 |
| JACKSON SENIOR CENTER INC | $173,576 |
| STE GENEVIEVE GOLDEN AGE CLUB | $172,894 |
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, $15.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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.
40 repeat relationships — 32 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $95k 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
- BCBUTLER COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC9× · 2017–2025 · $3.9M · revenue +42% · 84% of their budget
- SMSOUTHEAST MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC9× · 2017–2025 · $3.0M · revenue +35%
- SSSENIOR SERVICES OF CHAFFEE MO INC9× · 2017–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +15% · 84% of their budget
Funded once
- RHRESCARE HOME CAREone grant, 2018 · $31k
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.
To provide congregate meals, home delivered meals, transportation, and information and assistance to senior citizens of washington county, illinois.
Provide meals,transportation and social interaction opportunities for senior citizens living in platte county missouri
Provide affordable and free meals to senior citizens
Provide food service and other social services to senior citizens
Services for senior citizens of posey county, indiana
Provide services & meals to the elderly.
To provide transportation and meals for seniors, including home delivery
Provides senior center and congregate and home delivered meals, homemaker services allowing seniors to remain in their homes.
Community senior centerprovide meals to senior citizens & homebound citizens
To provide services and resources to the aged citizens of kosciusko county indiana and surrounding areas including transportation, mobile meals, and senior activities to improve quality of life
Provide home delivered meals and transportation services free of charge
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Madison County Senior Citizens Council On Aging and the most unlike its peers is Stoddard County Transit Services Inc. 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 43 years old; the field is 32. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 15% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 8% 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.
28 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 42 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 BUTLER COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHEAST MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
- Who funds SENIOR SERVICES OF CHAFFEE MO INC ↗
- Who funds STODDARD COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS AGENCY INC ↗
- Who funds Charleston Nutrition Center ↗
- Who funds Ripley County Senior Citizens Club Inc ↗
- Who funds East Prairie Nutrition Center ↗
- Who funds THE WILLIAMSVILLE AREA ASSOC OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN ↗
- Who funds PERRY COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CARTER CO SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds ST GENEVIEVE GOLDEN AGE CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds MADISON COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
- Who funds BISMARCK COMMUNITY ACTION CENTER ↗
- Who funds NAYLOR SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
- Who funds IRON COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS ORG INC ↗
- Who funds EAST MISSOURI ACTION AGENCY INC ↗
- Who funds TRI-CITY SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB ↗
- Who funds MALDEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
- Who funds REYNOLDS COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds Legal Services of Southern Missouri ↗
- Who funds DUNKLIN COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICESINC ↗
- Who funds SCOTT COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM INC ↗
- Who funds VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST MO ↗
- Who funds VOYCE ↗
- Who funds Ripley County Transit Inc ↗
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: Southeast Missouri Food Bank Inc · Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc · 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 Southeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging Inc 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.