Little Keswick Education Corporation

What it reported doing in 2024

Clinical overview keswick school employs four full-time clinical therapists: a phd level licensed clinical psychologist as the clinical director; a phd level licensed marriage and family therapist; a master's level social worker licensed also in drama therapy; and a master's level social worker who also serves as a residential clinical advisor. The fifth member of the clinical treatment team includes a consulting psychiatrist who manages the psychiatric and ongoing medication management of all the students, including classroom observations, regular 1:1 student sessions, parent calls, and weekly clinical/administrative meetings within the immersive clinical model. Related service therapies in speech/language pathology, occupational therapy, and art therapy further add to the broader clinical team. All students receive weekly individual sessions with a clinical therapist, a biweekly family therapy via video conferencing or in-person if location and family systems allow for it, weekly small group clinical therapy, and psychiatric oversight and medication management. Additional related and academic support services are available according to each student's individualized needs. These may include any combination of the following: speech/social pragmatics: individual, small group, conversation caf, integrated; occupational therapy: individual, small group, whole group, meal mechanics, integrated; art therapy: individual; academic support in reading and/or math remediation. The clinical team directs an advisory team process, provides staff training, and consults on programmatic issues. More importantly, the clinical team works to guide and support the relationship-based interactions between all of the staff members and our students. The clinical-developmental model predicated on the knowledge that human development is primarily mediated and facilitated by interactions within important relationships, the school maintains a relationship-based model. Many elements of attachment, object relations, and interpersonal therapies are utilized in the approach to treatment. Additional interventions include strategies found in behavioral, cognitive behavioral, family systems, and experiential work. Because of the pervasive disruptions and challenges students face in their lives, the appropriate conceptual umbrella is broad enough to contain and address the widest array of needs and symptomatology. The clinical team at keswick school focuses on establishing and maintaining deep and evolving conceptualizations of students' complex and multilayered disorders. Optimal treatment and specific interventions are based upon comprehensive in-depth understandings of the underlying psychological and biomedical processes for each student. Traditional, solution-focused, or symptom focused therapies are not sufficient, as demonstrated by most of the students' treatment histories. Students do not typically benefit from traditional behavioral contingencies, insight-oriented therapies, or teaching methods; they often benefit from classic cognitive behavioral intervention, but not as the primary intervention modality. Therefore, a broad clinical-developmental model is used to address all areas of individual, relational, and social functioning. Change occurs primarily through immersion in a highly structured and predictable milieu, designed and calibrated according to the individual and group needs of our students. Collaborative goal-setting, direct instruction and positive practice of a set of functional goals provides the content for hundreds of relationship-based interactions each day. Carefully engineered task demands and contextual support ensure experiences of success with appropriate objectives. The types of functional goals targeted are defined thorough the social/emotional curriculum, which addresses objectives in executive functioning, interpersonal collaboration, competence in daily tasks and interactions, and social and relationship skills. Along with c

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 75%; rating input score 75
• Program expense ratio: 76.6%; rating input score 77
• Fundraising efficiency: $9.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
  • 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: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 0.6%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings