Central Illinois Agency on Aging Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370983168
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Peoria, IL, USA
Phone
3096742071
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,137,976
Expenses
$4,514,451
Assets
$3,323,753
Liabilities
$487,142

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TESSA MAHONEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TESSA MAHONEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $93,594 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Age central is the designated area agency on aging for Illinois planning and service area 04, serving fulton, marshall, peoria, stark, tazewell and woodford counties. Under the older americans act, the agency plans, funds, coordinates, monitors and advocates for a comprehensive network of services for older adults, adults with disabilities and their caregivers, including congregate and home delivered meals, in-home and supportive services, transportation, legal assistance, information and assistance, options counseling, family caregiver support and respite, health promotion and disease prevention, the long term care ombudsman program, elder abuse and adult protective services referral, and benefits and medicare counseling.

What it reported doing in 2024

Nutrition services title iii c-1 congregate meals, title iii c-2 home delivered meals, nsip and the state home delivered meals program.age central funds and administers congregate and home delivered meal services for older adults across the six central Illinois counties of fulton, marshall, peoria, stark, tazewell and woodford. Congregate meals are served at community meal sites, and home delivered meals are brought to the homes of older adults who are homebound. Under the older americans act, meals are offered on a voluntary donation basis, no older adult is denied a meal for inability to contribute, and every meal must meet the nutrition requirements set by the older americans act and the federal government. These services allow older adults to remain in their own homes and communities and avoid premature institutionalization, and the meal site and delivery contacts also serve as a regular wellness check on isolated older adults.effective 10/01/2024 the agency transitioned direct operation of the city of peoria and peoria county congregate and home delivered meal programs to neighborhood house, and six agency nutrition employees transferred to that provider. For the remainder of the fiscal year the agency delivered meals in the other counties through subrecipient providers and continued to operate the fulton county nutrition program directly, purchasing meals from graham health system and, later in the year, adding frozen home delivered meals through a commercial vendor which reduced the cost of home delivered meals in fulton county.during the year the agency also partnered with neighborhood house to distribute senior farmers market nutrition program coupon booklets to older adults across the service area.fy2025 federal expenditures for this program were $575,857 for title iii c-1, $541,765 for title iii c-2 and $100,678 for nsip commodities, and the program was additionally supported by the state of Illinois home delivered meals award of $1,647,940 for the 07/01/2024 to 06/30/2025 award period.in fy2025 the agency and its nutrition providers served 286,976 home delivered meals to 1,643 older adults and 37,337 congregate meals to 583 older adults, a total of 324,313 meals. Of the home delivered meal recipients, 1,221 lived alone and 1,314 had three or more limitations in activities of daily living. These figures are drawn from the agency's older americans act performance system reporting to the Illinois department on aging.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 95% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 48.8%; rating input score 49; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.5%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.3% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 10 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $143K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.