Skip to content
Catholic Charities Corporation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Catholic Charities Corporation

Respond to those in need through an integrated system of quality services designed to respect the dignity of every person and build a just and compassionate society.

$5.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$2.9M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Religion$6.6MHealth$4.0MHuman Services$1.0MHousing & Shelter$582kCivil Rights$21kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $3,065,247, the rows itemized in this filing. The $5,778,388 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,713,141 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $102k
  • $250k+1 grant · $2.9M
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$71M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$2,902,847
WOMANKIND INC$52,400
ZELIE'S HOME$50,000
HANNAH'S HOME$20,000
AKRON PREGNANCY SERVICES$20,000
ASHLAND CARE CENTER INC$20,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–24, $2.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%HANNAH'S HOME: $20k → 9%STAUGUSTINE MANOR: $375k → 17%STAUGUSTINE MANOR: $85k → 17%ROSE-MARY CENTER: $426k → 17%ROSE-MARY CENTER: $414k → 17%ROSE-MARY CENTER: $414k → 17%ROSE-MARY CENTER: $414k → 17%WEST SIDE CATHOLIC CENTER: $6k → 17%CATHOLIC CHARITIES HOUSING CORPORATION: $551k → 17%ST VICENT DE PAUL SOCIETY: $13k → 17%ST VICENT DE PAUL SOCIETY: $13k → 17%ST VICENT DE PAUL SOCIETY: $13k → 17%ST VICENT DE PAUL SOCIETY: $13k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$12M · 7 repeat orgs$710k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against -11% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
6

Total granted

$12M
$650k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
-11%

Still filing today

86%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesHealthCivil RightsReligionHousing & ShelterOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • RT
    ROSE-MARY THE JOHANNA GRASSELLI REHABILITATION&EDUCATION CENTER INC
    4× · 2020–2023 · $1.7M · revenue +3%
  • SA
    ST AUGUSTINE MANOR
    2× · 2017–2018 · $460k · revenue +42%
  • ZH
    ZELIE'S HOME
    2× · 2023–2024 · $90k · revenue +76%

Funded once

  • RH
    ROSE-MARY HOUSING CORPORATION FKA CATHOLIC CHARITIES HOUSING CORP
    one grant, 2017 · $551k · revenue -53% · 44% of their budget
  • DO
    DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND FACILITIES SERVICES CORPORATION
    one grant, 2017 · $31k · revenue -11%
  • BG
    BIRTHRIGHT GEAUGA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $21k · revenue +56% · 28% of their budget
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Cleveland Pregnancy Center

Providing Biblical, life-affirming resources and services to those affected by unplanned pregnancy.

Health
2
The Sparrows Nest Maternity Home

We are a Christ-centered residential care facility for pregnant women in crisis. We offer a safe home that provides shelter, food, prenatal/postpartum care, spiritual, mental, financial, rides to medical appointments, educational and…

Human Services
3
Southern Ohio Pregnancy Center Inc

Pregnancy Resource Services

Human Services
4
Life Choices Care Center

To provide support for pregnant women

Health
5
Catholic Pregnancy Help Center Inc Dba Loving Choice

Our mission is to provide spiritual, emotional, educational and material support to expectant mothers and fathers who are faced with an un-planned pregnancy so they may successfully carry their babies to term, based on catholic social and…

Human Services
6
A Womens Care Center

Our mission is to provide services to women with unplanned pregnancies in a compassionate and respectful environment

Health
7
Life Choice Care Center Inc

To provide physical and emotional support to women and their families facing unplanned pregnancies through a christ centered and biblically based approach.

Human Services
8
Cleveland Care Center Inc

We are a religious-based 501c3 non-profit to provide community support for mothers and babies.

Human Services
9
Pregnancy Help Center of San Gabriel Valley Inc

The pregnancy help center of san gabriel provides a safe caring environment where women who may be pregnant or who are pregnant can be supported with dignity during and after pregnancy.

Health
10
The Elizabeth House Maternity Home

Crisis Pregnancy Center

Human Services
11
Crisis Pregnancy Center of the Treasure Coast

To defend life, to meet physical, social and spiritual needs of those who may be experiencing a crisis pregnancy, to bring healing and wholeness to lives traumatized by abortion, to present the gospel of jesus christ, and to challenge the…

Health
12
Marthas House of Hope Inc

Martha's House of Hope is a non-profit organization, founded by Roman Catholic individuals committed to providing shelter, life skills and hope to pregnant mothers and their babies; to strive for lives of self-reliance, a sense of service…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rose-Mary the Johanna Grasselli Rehabilitation&Education Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Hannahs Home. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

14 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 14 of the 16 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
7/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SISTERS OF CHARITY OF ST AUGUSTINE HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $5,365,219 · ReligionSISTERS OF CHARITY OF ST AUGUSTINE HEALTH SYSTEM …Individual grant recipient: $3,747,112 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+3 more: $70,765 · OtherROSE-MARY THE JOHANNA GRASSELLI REHABILITATION&EDUCATION CENTER INC: $1,666,790 · Human ServicesROSE-MARY THE JOHANNA GRA…ROSE-MARY HOUSING CORPORATION FKA CATHOLIC CHARITIES HOUSING CORP: $551,291 · Human ServicesROSE-MARY HOUSING CORPORA…ST AUGUSTINE MANOR: $460,000 · Human ServicesST AUGUSTINE MANOR+3 more: $75,700 · Human ServicesWomankind Inc: $124,800 · HealthASHLAND CARE CENTER INC: $20,000 · HealthZELIE'S HOME: $90,000 · Housing & ShelterBIRTHRIGHT GEAUGA INC: $21,200 · Civil RightsBIRTHRIGHT LAKE INC: $21,200 · Civil Rights
Religion$5,365,219Other$3,817,877Human Services$2,753,781Health$144,800Housing & Shelter$90,000Civil Rights$42,400

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSISTERS OF CHARITY OF ST AUGUSTINE HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $5,365,219 over 4y, 44% of budgetROSE-MARY THE JOHANNA GRASSELLI REHABILITATION&EDUCATION CENTER INC: $1,666,790 over 4y, 2.8% of budgetROSE-MARY HOUSING CORPORATION FKA CATHOLIC CHARITIES HOUSING CORP: $551,291 over 1y, 44% of budgetST AUGUSTINE MANOR: $460,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetWomankind Inc: $124,800 over 2y, 8.3% of budgetZELIE'S HOME: $90,000 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetDIOCESAN COUNCIL SOCIETY OF SVDP CLEVELAND DIOCESE: $50,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetDIOCESE OF CLEVELAND FACILITIES SERVICES CORPORATION: $30,765 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetBIRTHRIGHT GEAUGA INC: $21,200 over 1y, 28% of budgetBIRTHRIGHT LAKE INC: $21,200 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetASHLAND CARE CENTER INC: $20,000 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetHannahs Home: $20,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetWEST SIDE CATHOLIC CENTER: $5,700 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

American Endowment Fo…Natl Christian Charit…Amazonsmile Foundation
American Endowment FoundationOH9.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Endowment Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Catholic Charities Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Catholic Charities Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 16 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Catholic Charities’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home