Mcclendon Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200108493
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027376191
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,609,344
Expenses
$6,638,270
Assets
$8,272,883
Liabilities
$3,179,582

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHEANDINITA DYSON (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHEANDINITA DYSON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $252,509 total reported compensation
  • SAMUEL ALLEN (MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $209,865 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL BURT (CHIEF OF OPERATING OFFICER): $154,210 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Core services - the center provides traditional outpatient services to more than 600 people each year with the goal of helping them to recover from their mental illnesses. The center provides intake and diagnostic services to each client admitted for center services receives an extensive intake that asseses their history current level of functioning and treatment needs. Most clients receive medication prescriptions and management from a licensed psychiatrist or an advance practice registered nurse. Clients are referred for psychotherapy, which is traditional talk therapy delivered by a professional counselor. Clients are assigned to a community support specialist, whose services are described above. The css coordinates all their care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.8%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th 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: 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: 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: 12.8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.4%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.8% of revenue deployed · 70.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $253K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $520K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 27 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other liabilities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.