Counseling Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010315038
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
South Portland, ME, USA
Phone
2072821500
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Counseling, Support Groups

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,157,030
Expenses
$10,367,734
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN BOUCHARD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR VANCE BROWN (DIRECTOR): $537,854 total reported compensation
  • DENNIS KING (PRES. MMHP,): $504,672 total reported compensation
  • GREGORY BOWERS (EX. VP & TRE): $260,389 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Counseling services, inc. (csi) is a comprehensive organization committed to offering easy access to a full continuum of high-quality, integrated and affordable community mental health and substance abuse resources and support for the people we serve. Csi is a creative organization that promotes innovation, evaluation and accountability in resource development and delivery. Our mission is to improve quality of life, enhance recovery and reduce stigma. We believe these efforts, combined with increasing pride and joy, are key to promoting personal growth, improved health and lasting satisfaction. Csi is a collaborative organization that works in partnership with the individuals and the communities we serve to make those communities healthier places to live. We are partners and leaders in creating an exceptional healthcare system for our constituents. More than words, our mission statement is a commitment, an obligation, a call to service.

What it reported doing in 2013

Community support services these services are provided for individuals who have been diagnosed with a major mental illness and who have some functional impairment in the community. One goal for individuals receiving these services is to live as independently as possible in the community and to improve their quality of life. Csi provides three levels of care in the community support program: community integration, assertive community treatment (act) and community rehabilitation services. All of the services are community based. Assertive community treatment is a multi-disciplinary team approach which includes nursing, psychiatry, substance abuse services, vocational services, therapy and case (continued at schedule o). (continued from page 2) management services. Community integration services include supportive counseling and case management services. Community rehabilitation services are offered in two locations, north berwick and biddeford. At these sites individuals live in independent apartments which are supervised 12 hours a day and have staff on call 24/7. Providing these levels of care along with a clinical team approach allows for an easy transition from one level of care to another without the disruption, duplication and cost of changing providers. These services provide a safety net of care and can assist in decreasing psychiatric hospitalization. Lastly, csi offers opportunities for peer involvement including two social clubs in the sanford/springvale and biddeford communities. There is also opportunity for individuals to participate in life enrichment and peer activities. There were 17,015 community integration hours and 2,556 days of community rehabilitation service provided. Csi's two act teams each maintain an average census of 61 clients receiving services from the multi-disciplinary team.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% 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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.1%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -26.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.4% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $9.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $538K · 22 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.