Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Greensburg

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320222403
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Greensburg, PA, United States
Phone
724-837-1840
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,747,147
Expenses
$1,443,946
Assets
$1,700,926
Liabilities
$9,387

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MR GEORGE BUTLER (PRESIDENT)
  • MR ROLAND MERTZ (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELANEY HEGYES (DIRECTOR): $105,850 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

In the spirit of Jesus Christ, our mission is to bring help, hope and healing to God’s people as the charitable, service and outreach arm of the Bishop and the Diocese of Greensburg. Vision Through charity, service and outreach, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Greensburg is the link between those in need and the resources which can help them. We are constantly telling our story and the stories of those in need to raise awareness and much needed support for our Catholic mission. We connect people with information and referrals for material assistance and mental health services. We empower seniors to be more independent and we welcome and support our new and culturally diverse neighbors.

What it reported doing in 2024

Counseling program: includes a partnership between catholic charities and catholic schools in the diocese of greensburg formed to provide school counselors. Promoting healthy relationships, diversity, acceptance, healing, and the practice of positive interpersonal skills among the student body, staff, and families. Additionally, this service provides more immediate relief to distressed students. Counseling techniques designed to assist individuals, families, or marriage partners in identifying, resolving, and/or minimizing problems between themselves and others. Examples include but are not limited to - chemical dependency, grief issues, separation and divorce, parenting, and relationships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 48th 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: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 17.4%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 67.5% of revenue deployed · 75% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.