Van Wert County Victims Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341731295
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Van Wert, OH, USA
Phone
4192389800
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Safety Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,435
Expenses
$33,788
Assets
$42,820
Liabilities
$4,860

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS RIGGENBACH (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • THOMAS RIGGENBACH (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN HATCHER (BOARD MEMBER)
  • KENT MCMILLEN (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 mission of van wert county victims services, inc. Is dedicated to providing compassionate, trauma-informed advocacy and support to victims of crime in van wert county. We strive to empower survivors, protect their rights, and promote healing by guiding them through the criminal justice process and connecting them with essential resources to rebuild their lives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Attend and help prepare for court hearings with victims, assist in securing domestic violence civil protection orders assist and provide help for applying for medical legal rights

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.3%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 90.1%; rating input score 90

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: 16.4%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.3% of revenue deployed · 90.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $30K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.