· Public charity
Ten County Aging Board Inc
Provide services for the elderly
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 24 grants below total $2,517,002 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $3,853,568 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,336,566 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k5 grants · $38k
- $10k–50k12 grants · $297k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $556k
- $250k+1 grant · $1.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| AGING PROJECTS INC | $1,627,154 |
| WINDSOR PLACE | $193,079 |
| RENO COUNTY DEPARTMENT ON AGING | $87,687 |
| RICE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $79,810 |
| KINGMAN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $76,164 |
| SUMNER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT | $60,953 |
| RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING | $57,985 |
| COMMUNITY CARE CONNECTIONS | $48,922 |
| HARPER COUNTY DEPARTMENT ON AGING | $42,289 |
| RENO COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT | $34,292 |
| COWLEY COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $31,346 |
| MCPHERSON COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING | $25,430 |
| MCPHERSON MEALS ON WHEELS | $20,480 |
| HARPER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARMENT | $18,565 |
| CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT | $17,834 |
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 (FY17–24, $1.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 84% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +32% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
26 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k 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
- APAGING PROJECTS INC8× · 2017–2024 · $9.4M · revenue +32% · 43% of their budget
- RCRICE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC8× · 2017–2024 · $553k · revenue +75%
- KCKINGMAN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC8× · 2017–2024 · $550k · revenue +32% · 26% of their budget
Funded once
- SKSouthwest Kansas Area Agency on Aging Incgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $34k · revenue +37%
- SJST JAMES CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRISTone grant, 2023 · $30k
- NCNATIONAL COUNCIL ON AGING INCone grant, 2022 · $7k · revenue +10%
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.
Providing services for the elderly in kershaw county.
Provide services to local seniors to improve their quality of life and assist them in remaining in their homes
Provide services and meals to the elderly and disabled
To provide elderly residents of osage county, kansas with such services as they may from time to time require or find desirable and which, because of their age, they cannot provide themselves and which ought to be provided as economically…
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
To provide for the special needs of elderly people in sanders county and to provide transportation for the county.
Provide services & meals to the elderly.
None
Provides senior center and congregate and home delivered meals, homemaker services allowing seniors to remain in their homes.
Enhancing lives and building communities by providing transportation and nutrition services.
The mission of midland area agency on aging is to provide caring and quality services to older adults and their families that enable independent living with dignity in their homes and communities.
Recreational, transportation, visitation services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Elk County Council On Aging Inc and the most unlike its peers is Home Technology Solutions Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
16 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. 16 of the 31 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 AGING PROJECTS INC ↗
- Who funds RICE COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds KINGMAN COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds COWLEY COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds MCPHERSON COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING INC ↗
- Who funds ELK COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds SUMNER BOARD FOR SENIOR SERVICES ↗
- Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF MCPHERSON KS INC ↗
- Who funds KANSAS LEGAL SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds FOUR COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds PLEASANT VIEW HOME ↗
- Who funds Southwest Kansas Area Agency on Aging Inc ↗
- Who funds HOME TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds GREENWOOD COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: 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 Ten County Aging Board 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.