The Literacy Cooperative of Greater Cleveland

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900453660
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2167766180
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$962,885
Expenses
$1,143,570
Assets
$1,182,827
Liabilities
$28,232

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT E PAPONETTI (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT E PAPONETTI (CEO): $233,550 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The literacy cooperative of cleveland was formed for public, charitable, scientific, and educational purposes relating to the improvement of the literacy rate in the greater cleveland area.

What it reported doing in 2025

The literacy cooperative works to integrate literacy into workforce development and align programs and partners that will assist our residents in connecting to training to fill the jobs in demand and to assist our partners with tools that prepare individuals for training. Tlc has convened a consortium of adult education providers and workforce development organizations to collaborate on an industry-based curriculum for healthcare, manufacturing, hospitality, construction, and it. We work with our partners to train adult education and workforce development instructors and to evaluate how the contextualized curriculum compares to traditional adult education curriculum. Results have shown the use of contextualized curriculum has reduced completion time of lessons and increased literacy levels in less time to meet the minimum requirements for employment or training. In 2018, tlc convened a literacy summit to bring together more than 100 representatives of our partner organizations to begin developing a two- generation approach that supports family learning and parents as first teachers. This resulted in assembling a working group of 28 stakeholders to promote 2gen policies, practices, and paction plan with the goal of fostering strategies yielding 2gen implementation and suggests a framework for the action plan. Tlc is connecting all our initiatives to introduce and promote, to our community's service providers, two-generational strategies. Addressing both generations through a powerful two-generational approach gives the greatest probability of achieving impact. We advocate for the following actions: 1) resourcing ideas for engaging early childhood and adult education partners, building staff capacity, and streamlining priorities 2) strengthening the core income and work support programs to include opportunities for parent engagement to strengthen their children's education 3) incentivizing programs that build a strong foundation in life for young children, including childcare and two-generational strategies that support parents in both employment and raising children 4) developing a countywide two-generational practice that supports family learning and parents as first teachers

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 69.5%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.7% of revenue deployed · 69.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $795K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.