Clackamas Women's Services
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 930900119
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Oregon City, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5035575810
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Family Violence Shelters
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,938,087
- Expenses
- $13,323,642
- Assets
- $6,937,263
- Liabilities
- $2,617,711
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KARI SCHNEIDER-HILLE (PRESIDENT)
- MICHAEL WU (VICE PRESIDENT)
- MELISSA ERLBAUM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MELISSA ERLBAUM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $206,944 total reported compensation
- AMY DOUD (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $153,175 total reported compensation
- CATHERINE KOCH (COUNSELING & YOUTH PROGRAM): $118,641 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule o
What it reported doing in 2024
Counseling and support services program: cws provides trauma-specific mental health counseling for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, trafficking, child abuse, and elder abuse. Services include individual, family, and group therapy delivered by licensed clinicians with specialized training in trauma and expertise in the complex dynamics of interpersonal violence and the systems survivors navigate. Clinicians utilize evidence-based and trauma-informed modalities, including emdr, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (tf-cbt), applied suicide intervention skills training (asist), collaborative problem solving, motivational interviewing, and mindfulness-based practices. Services are delivered across multiple certified counseling sites and in community-based settings, including homes, shelters, and telehealth, to reduce barriers and increase equitable access to care.prevention education program: cws is the primary provider of sexual and dating violence prevention programming in clackamas county schools and reaches thousands of students annually through classroom-based prevention education. Using curriculum focused on k-12 students, cws brings vitally needed expertise and evidence-based programming to local classrooms in both rural and urban communities. Developmentally appropriate lessons range from how to identify abuse to building positive relationships, understanding media influences, and respecting differences such as gender identity or cultural background. Our violence prevention education team regularly connects students with our youth advocates, who serve as a conduit to cws' youth services program. Youth services program: the cws youth services program provides trauma-informed advocacy, mentoring, and skill-building support for children, youth, and families impacted by domestic and sexual violence, dating violence, and child abuse. Services are grounded in hope theory and research on positive childhood experiences (pces) and are designed to reduce the long-term social, emotional, and health impacts of childhood trauma while strengthening resilience and connection.core programming includes camp hope Oregon, a summer camp and mentoring program for youth impacted by violence, and pathways to hope, which provides year-round mentoring, family engagement, and therapeutic and skill-building group activities, including art-based and caregiver support groups. Additionally, youth advocates are stationed onsite at school-based health centers to support students and provide mobile services throughout the community. Together, these programs create a continuum of support that promotes safety, healing, and long-term stability for youth and families.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 90% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
- 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $28.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 39th 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; 66th 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: -3%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $11.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 13 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $104K reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.