Association of Clinicians for the Underserved Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611298728
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
8444228247
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,479,483
Expenses
$3,026,683
Assets
$3,090,193
Liabilities
$1,369,936

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHELLEY SPIRES (Vice President)
  • DOUG OLSON (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMANDA PEARS KELLY (Executive Dir.): $252,051 total reported compensation
  • ABBY MILLER-STARLING (CFO & CHRO): $196,331 total reported compensation
  • SUZANNE SPEER (SENIOR DIR OF WORK): $134,449 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

ACUs mission is to improve the health of underserved communities and to support and develop those clinicians who serve them. Our programs include professional education, clinical tools, advocacy, training and technical assistance, and patient education and outreach.

What it reported doing in 2024

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS - In 2024, ACU completed the seventh in the largest effort in history to train primary care providers in suicide preventionthe Suicide Safer Care (SSC) program. Generously supported by the Centene Corporation, the SSC program provided resources for, and instructed numerous healthcare professionals in, evidence-based strategies to identify, assess, and care for patients at risk for suicide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.1%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $67.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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; 63rd 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.02; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.2% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.1% of revenue deployed · 65.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $252K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.