Catholic Charities Hawaiʻi
Legal name: Catholic Charities Hawaii
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 990073547
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Honolulu, HI, United States
- Phone
- Oʻahu: (808) 521-4357; Hawaiʻi: (808) 961-7050; Maui: (808) 873-4673; Kauaʻi: (8
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Family Services
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $51,747,077
- Expenses
- $54,244,405
- Assets
- $72,982,813
- Liabilities
- $23,426,247
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
30 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- VAN TASSELL ROBERT (FORMER PRESIDENT & CEO)
- ANDRADE TINA (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- VAN TASSELL ROBERT (FORMER PRESIDENT & CEO): $328,893 total reported compensation
- ANDRADE TINA (PRESIDENT & CEO): $220,222 total reported compensation
- WONG STELLA (VP PROGRAMS/ASST. VP): $202,776 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Catholic Charities Hawaiʻi exists to carry out the social mission of the church by serving the people of Hawaiʻi, regardless of their faith or culture. Rooted in the gospel of Jesus, it promotes the dignity of each person by helping others empower themselves, and provides a wide range of social services with compassion and a commitment to excellence through programs and advocacy for social justice.
What it reported doing in 2024
Housing assistance and referral programs ("harp")1) "housing assistance and referral programs" provided assistance and/or information to individuals through a wide scope of services. Calls and walk-ins were received and were referred to cch programs or other appropriate programs in the community. Harp provided individuals with baby safety equipment, assistance for children with special needs, rent, and utility payments. Short-term financial assistance to rapidly re-house, prevent homelessness, or establish financial stability was provided on the neighbor islands.2) "housing placement services" helped families with children and veteran families find and secure housing and assisted with rent or security deposit payments to help the families avoid or leave homelessness.3) "housing case management" provided support services and case management to increase housing stability.4) "maili land transitional housing", "family assessment center" programs assisted individuals on oahu with housing services focused on families who were homeless. Services including transitional housing, case management, employment training, budgeting, and education classes were offered to help families become self-sufficient and obtain affordable permanent housing.5) "housing assistance program" helped seniors on oahu with housing crises, eviction prevention, counseling, and placement into affordable housing. Also operates small group homes and manages shared housing units.6) "homeless veterans' reintegration program" assisted in reintegrating homeless and at-risk veterans into meaningful employment within the labor force by providing employment and training services that veterans need in order to reenter the labor force.7) "city housing first" served chronically homeless individuals and families, including intense case management after housing placement and long-term housing subsidies.8) "rent and utility relief program"- rurp, provided financial assistance for rent, utilities and housing stability services to eligible households who had their income negatively impacted by the covid-19 pandemic.9) "maui emergency rental assistance" mera, provided financial assistance for rent, utilities and housing stability services to eligible households in maui who had their income negatively impacted by the covid-19 pandemic.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 92
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: $57.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $46.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $329K · 30 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.9M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.