Murtis Taylor Human Services System
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237158458
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Cleveland, OH, USA
- Phone
- 2162834400
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $22,519,211
- Expenses
- $22,148,475
- Assets
- $9,281,775
- Liabilities
- $4,485,151
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LOVELL J CUSTARD (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- LOVELL J CUSTARD (PRESIDENT & CEO): $272,953 total reported compensation
- DAVID BROWN (EXECUTIVE VP & COO): $205,516 total reported compensation
- RAYMOND MURPHY (PHARMACIST): $157,898 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of murtis taylor human services system is to support, empower and strengthen individuals, families and communities to become healthy and productive through effective, integrated health and human services.
What it reported doing in 2024
Behavioral health- children: service integrates systems such as family, school, county jobs & family services and provides behavioral health treatment for the whole child within the context of the family situation
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 72% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.9%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $56.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 83.7%; rating input score 84; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.6%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 86.9% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 12 filed program accomplishments · $19.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $273K · 28 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $627K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.