Area Agency on Aging 3
Legal name: Psa 3 Agency on Aging
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 341160526
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Lima, Ohio, US
- Phone
- 419-222-7723
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $38,418,513
- Expenses
- $38,245,797
- Assets
- $8,960,976
- Liabilities
- $6,617,081
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JACQUELYN LUCKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JACQUELYN LUCKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $179,771 total reported compensation
- LEANN ROLLAND (CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER): $162,174 total reported compensation
- CHRIS KARCZ (CFO): $141,122 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 assist older adults, persons with disabilities and family caregivers in our 7 county region. We are your resource connection in Allen, Auglaize, Hancock, Hardin, Mercer, Putnam, and Van Wert Counties in Ohio for older adults, persons with disabilities and family caregivers.
What it reported doing in 2024
Other program services: the other program services that are provided to older adults through psa 3 agency on aging's contracted service providers include: daily meal programs, day care, home making/personal care, health screening, transportation, escort, chore, home repair, case management, and care coordination program. The care coordination program is designed to link home care services to those vulnerable older adults who are at risk of losing their independence due to having multiple problems with daily living tasks and skills.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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: 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.74; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 8 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $34.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.4M reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.