Chemical Addictions Program Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630778800
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Montgomery, AL, USA
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chemistry, Chemical Engineering

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,188,787
Expenses
$2,425,184
Assets
$842,493
Liabilities
$544,712

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TIMOTHY DAVIS (EXECUTIVE DI): $78,875 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide substance abuse treatment for those who lack insurance coverage or oother financial resources necessary to obtain treatment through the private sector.

What it reported doing in 2016

To provide outpatient substance abuse treatment for elmore, montgomery, autauga, and lowndes counties and adult male inpatient treatment for the state of Alabama. Our primary mission is to provide substance abuse treatment for those who lack insurance coverage or other financial resources necessary to obtain treatment through the private sector.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.