CoAction

Legal name: Northwest Indiana Community Action Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351112290
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Crown Point, IN, US
Phone
219.794.1829
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community Coalitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$37,551,116
Expenses
$37,606,757
Assets
$14,547,335
Liabilities
$5,931,173

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER TROWBRIDGE (PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER TROWBRIDGE (PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE): $209,259 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER MALONE (CHIEF SERVICES OFFICER): $189,209 total reported compensation
  • JONATHAN EDWARDS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $177,271 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

People experiencing financial hardship find opportunities, resources, and respect here.

What it reported doing in 2025

Aging services: provides help to older and disabled persons to secure and maintain maximum independence and dignity in a home environment, remove barriers to independence for older persons, provide information and assistance and provide continuing care for vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. The program specializes in case management, as well as in-home and community services that are necessary to avoid or delay nursing facility placement. During the calendar year, more than 12,000 persons were assisted through these programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% of its reported program spending out as 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: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $136.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.1%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 92.7% of revenue deployed · 92.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $34.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $209K · 24 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.6M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.