Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232052886
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Harrisburg, PA, US
Phone
717-545-6400
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,807,699
Expenses
$47,498,031
Assets
$11,621,437
Liabilities
$9,325,727

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOANNA OTERO-CRUZ (PRESIDENT)
  • MELINDA GHILARDI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN HIGGINBOTHAM (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN HIGGINBOTHAM (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $265,711 total reported compensation
  • JENIFER THOMPSON (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $167,004 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER BEITTEL (CHIEF PHILANTHROPIC OFFICE): $164,275 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To prevent domestic violence and ensure the safety of victims and survivors across Pennsylvania.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pa department of human servicesthe pa department of human services (dhs) provides foundational funding for comprehensive core domestic violence services across Pennsylvania. Pcadv passes through 90% of this funding to its 59 local domestic violence programs, which provide direct services to nearly 90,000 survivors and their children each year. At the same time, pcadv uses the administrative portion of this funding to provide infrastructure, statewide education and resources, and build capacity for its network of local domestic violence programs.the local domestic violence programs use these funds to provide a breadth of survivor-centered services to pennsylvanians experiencing domestic violence. Many of these services can be life-saving, including 24-hour hotlines, safety planning, counseling and support, assistance navigating the legal system and court accompaniment, medical accompaniment, transportation services, prevention, and emergency shelter. Programs also leverage these funds to produce public education and awareness events, provide training to community stakeholders and partners, and engage in systems advocacy to improve access for survivors and their children.in fiscal year 2024-2025, pcadv's 59 local domestic violence programs served 85,626 survivors; of which, 6,977 were children. Program staff answered 82,380 hotline calls. The programs collectively sheltered 7,603 survivors and their children for a total of 540,405 shelter nights. In addition to providing these direct services to survivors, the programs hosted, overall, 8,007 education and awareness activities with more than 128,062 participants and conducted 1,902 trainings for 49,439 participants. Volunteers committed 190,803 hours to supplement these efforts.pcadv and its local programs help survivors restore their safety and security through the relocation program. Last fiscal year alone, 1,307 adults, and by extension, 1,584 children, received financial assistance through this program. A total of $932,338 was invested in relocation efforts helping survivors move away from their abusers or remain safely in their own homes after an abuser relocated.pcadv's 16 funded civil legal representation (clr) sites represented a total of 3,365 clients helping them to navigate the legal system while they sought safety. These sites collectively secured $50,325 in court-ordered support for survivors and their children.providing the infrastructure for this work, pcadv staff supported the 59 local programs by conducting 221 training sessions for more than 8,600 participants and responding to 2,222 requests for technical assistance and 4,766 protection from abuse database (pfad) requests for support. Pcadv supports community-level systems advocacy by focusing its efforts on statewide systems change. Staff participated in more than 563 collaborative meetings with stakeholders and partners. In addition, 1,087 new users registered on the online learning center with 22,461 course completions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% 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: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.2%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 94.8%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $968.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th 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: 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 64.3%; rating input score 64; 11th 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: 0.6%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 94.2% of revenue deployed · 94.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $45M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $266K · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 64 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 59 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.