Paper City Mentoring Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813870546
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Chillicothe, OH, USA
Phone
7405903456
Rating
96
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$99,468
Expenses
$95,928
Assets
$65,707
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CASEY OATES (PRESIDENT)
  • ERIN GIVENS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ASTI POWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • CASEY OATES (PRESIDENT)
  • MEGAN GERBER (SECRETARY)
  • KATELYN BAUER (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The paper city mentoring project exists to connect teenagers to committed adults for a mentoring relationship that can help them discover their potential and worth.

What it reported doing in 2025

To provide mentorship, support and encouragement to local students through mentoring projects. The goal is for the mentor pairing to lead to increased academic performance, self-esteem, and strengthened life and social skills for the teens.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $96K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.