Clifford Beers Community Care Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
060646757
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Haven, CT, US
Phone
(203) 772-1270
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,892,996
Expenses
$20,991,726
Assets
$16,569,541
Liabilities
$6,452,218

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROCHELLE CUMMINGS (PRESIDENT)
  • DR SANDRA BULMER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ALICE FORRESTER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • ILARIA FILIPPI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CBCC)
  • JAMELL COTTO (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALICE FORRESTER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $252,258 total reported compensation
  • ILARIA FILIPPI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CBCC): $186,016 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER RICHMOND (VP OF POPULATION HEALTH): $154,886 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide trauma-informed, whole-family mental health care and support services to children, adolescents, and young adults in New Haven County, addressing underlying needs rather than symptoms.

What it reported doing in 2024

Clifford beers provides a broad range of outpatient programs and services including traditional outpatient therapy, specialized services to target problem sexual behavior, school-based health clinics to more easily reach children, and community driven crisis work. All clinic programs and services are designed to respond to the needs of the community and, therefore, morph as needed. The clinic uses a trauma-informed approach to care, serving 18+ towns/cities in the greater new haven area. (continued on schedule o) emps crisis services is a 24/7 hotline (211) for families facing a crisis but not life-threatening situation (e.g., significant safety issue, threats of suicide, destruction to property). Care coordination is for families at risk of having children placed in residential care and aims to collaborate with families, community supports, and other providers to coordinate the family's care and empower the family to advocate for themselves. Child first is an evidence-based in-home program for children 0-5 who are at high risk for abuse or neglect. The clinic guides/supports new parents to foster both the parent-child connection and the child's development. Child first also consults with preschools and day care centers on issues regarding the behavioral health needs of young children. School-based health clinics are in four schools. Onsite locales help overcome financial, cultural, transportation and stigma barriers to care. Jotlab (juveniles opting for treatment to learn appropriate behaviors) offers treatment for children and adolescents engaging in problem sexual behavior or at-risk behavior. Treatment can follow traditional weekly outpatient therapy or can be as much as 15 hours/week via the intensive outpatient (iop) program. Project catch (collaboration advocacy and treatment for children) focuses on the trauma of sexual abuse and domestic violence. Catch provides support, case management, and advocacy to help children and their families recover from these traumas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 77% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.5%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $71.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 76.5% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $252K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $328K reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.