Mcleod Treatment Programs Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510175547
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Hutchinson, MN, USA
Phone
3205879790
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Group Homes

Reported finances

Revenue
$-59,071
Expenses
$354,917
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT NOKES (PRESIDENT)
  • WILLAIAM ARNDT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN DEVEREAUX (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN DEVEREAUX (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $51,148 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide children with quality care in a nurturing home-like atmosphere so they can become healthy and productive members of our community.

What it reported doing in 2021

McLeod Treatment Programs, Inc.(MTP) is committed to providing quality out-of-home care to children in need of protection, guidance, family intervention, structure, and therapeutic services. MTP currently operates 3 programs for children; Sheppard House(boys ages 5-18), Franklin House (girls ages 5-18), and the Visitation/Exchange Center for children of divorce or separation needing supervised visitation or exchange.MTP has facilitated many changes over the past several years. We've expanded the type of programs we offer, the number of counties we serve, as well as ensuring the professional quality of our staff. MTP has come to know that simply treating children in behavioristic terms is not enough. That early intervention, family involvement, appropriate assessment of the child's needs, and therapeutic work - getting at the underlying causes of behavior are what helps children to become healthy, productive members of society.Children can be referred and placed by Social Services, Court Services, Tribal Authority, and Law Enforcement agencies. Prior to entering one of MTP's Programs, a pre-placement interview is scheduled. Information received from a telephone referral determines if a pre-placement interview will occur. The referring worker, child, family members and the MTP treatment team members are present for the interview. A decision is made on the appropriateness of placement based on this interview. Appropriateness of placement is based on the client's social history, extent of assaultive behavior, extent of suicidal ideation, psychological diagnosis, group fit, family support of placement, whether the program can meet the child's identified needs, and whether MTP is the best environment for the child at the time. If a child is deemed appropriate, an intake date is scheduled.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -700.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.4%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $355K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.