Comprehensive Psychiatric Care Specialists
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 464565105
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Charleston, SC, USA
- Phone
- 8438762420
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $182,490
- Expenses
- $237,680
- Assets
- $69,809
- Liabilities
- $24,381
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JONATHAN EDWARDS MD (PRESIDENT)
- LEE LEDDY MD (VICE PRESIDENT)
- PATRICK CAWLEY MD (CEO MUSC HEALTH SYSTEM)
Highest reported compensation
- LEE LEDDY MD (VICE PRESIDENT): $1,009,426 total reported compensation
- TERRENCE STEYER MD (DEAN COLLEGE OF MED): $951,759 total reported compensation
- PATRICK CAWLEY MD (CEO MUSC HEALTH SYSTEM): $895,927 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Comprehensive psychiatric care specialists was established to operate exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, and to carry out the charitable, scientific and educational purposes of the university medical associates of the medical university of sc. Comprehensive psychiatric care specialists purpose is (1) to provide effective, accessible, and responsive mental health services, (2) to promote, encourage and aid clinical psychiatric care and scientific investigation by the faculty, staff and students at the musc department of psychiatry; (3) to promote the recruitment and retention of superior medical professionals and faculty by encouraging and aiding their professional development; and (4) to explore, investigate, contract for, and engage in collaborative initiatives with other persons to undertake scientific, clinical and translational research activities and endeavors.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provide effective, accessible, and responsive mental health services in an academic setting that promotes, encourages, and AIDS clinical psychiatric care and scientific investigation and research by the faculty, staff and students at the medcial university of South Carolina department of psychiatry. Also, explores, investigates, contracts for and engages in collaborative initiatives with other persons to undertake scientific, clinical, and translational research activities and endeavors.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 57
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 88.8%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 26.3%; rating input score 26; 15th 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: -30.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 517.7%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $211K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 26/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.