Greater Trenton Cmhc Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222351183
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Mount Holly, NJ, USA
Phone
6092675928
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,393,568
Expenses
$17,571,668
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN MONAHAN (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN MONAHAN (PRESIDENT/CEO): $182,015 total reported compensation
  • SARALA MUNDASSERY (CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER): $173,676 total reported compensation
  • DEBRA KARPF (VP CLINICAL SERVICES): $143,580 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Greater trenton c. M. H. C., inc's purpose is to provide a comprehensive system of mental health services to the residents of the greater trenton area, both directly and through sub-contracts with other mental health organizations and programs which serve the residents of the trenton metropolitan area and thereby enhancing the quality of the social life of the community. Greater trenton c. M. H. C., inc. Provides a broad array of mental health and addiction services to residents of mercer county, including continuums of care for youth and families and adults and familites. Services include intensive day treatment services, crisis-oriented outreach and in-home services, less intense outpatient services, and a variety of services for special populations. It has expanded its program services to include the development of affordable housing for eligible consumers.

What it reported doing in 2014

Supportive housing - assists adults with serious and persisten mental illness, in finding and maintaining apartments. The program also provides support to chronically homeless individuals and families. Services include identifying apartments, assistance in obtaining subsidies and ongoing support services related to landlord/neighbor relationships, employement, skill development, linkage to services, illness management and recovery services and other supports enabling consumers to maintain housing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 79% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 most voting board members are independent. 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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.3%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 69th 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: -1%; rating input score 23; 23rd 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: 3.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -20% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.3% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $16.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $112K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.
  • 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.