Catholic Charities of Ashtabula County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
340714639
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ashtabula, OH, USA
Phone
4409922121
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,824,113
Expenses
$1,986,820
Assets
$1,216,210
Liabilities
$654,389

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NICHOLAS PERKOSKI (PRESIDENT)
  • RENEE INCORVATI (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CECILIA COOPER (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JILL VALENTIC (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JILL VALENTIC (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $98,935 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

A multi-service agency serving ashtabula county, devoted to helping meet basic human needs. Its concentration is on poverty reduction, strengthening families, proclaiming life and building community. Most of those served were at or below the poverty level.

What it reported doing in 2024

Protective services consists of the representative payeeship program and guardianship. The representative payeeship program is a stabilization program that manages benefits for individuals who are incapable of managing their own finances. Typically, these individuals receive supplemental security income (a federal income supplement program to assist aged, blind, and disabled people who have little or no income). The first choice for a payee would be a family member or trusted friend, but for some individuals, no appropriate person is available. Representative payeeship is a less restrictive protective service than guardianship, and the courts are not involved. However, the beneficiary is restricted from having control of his or her monthly benefit amount. Ccac actually receives the beneficiary's monthly check and distributes it. The caseworker ensures that basic shelter, food, and clothing needs are met, and that appropriate benefits are accessed; thus, providing stability to those who are vulnerable to exploitation. Clients of the representative payeeship program are typically diagnosed with mental illness, alcohol, and drug addiction and/or physical and mental disabilities. Many clients have been a victim of exploitation and abuse and may have been easily taken advantage of financially. Given these factors, funds are often misused and needs such as shelter and food go unmet, leading to homelessness, poor health, lower functioning, and hospitalization. Guardianship is a legal relationship established by the probate court between two parties: one being the guardian and the other being the ward. If, after a thorough investigation and hearing, the court finds the person incapable of managing his or her own person, it will appoint a legal guardian. The guardian protects and oversees the ward's day-to-day maintenance, which includes food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and other necessities. The guardian is the voice and decision-maker for the ward. The presence of a guardian increases accountability from care staff and medical professionals and provides protection from exploitative individuals or family in the ward's life. Guardians monitor their ward's mental, physical, emotional, material, and environmental well-being. This program has traditionally served frail, indigent individuals over the age of 60, who are deemed incompetent. Additionally, the program serves as guardians to individuals with a severe and persistent mental illness, and under the age of 60.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $391.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.9%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.54; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.7% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $99K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.