Natchaug Hospital

Legal name: Natchaug Hospital Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
060966963
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2021
Location
Mansfield Center, CT, US
Phone
860.456.1311
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Group Health Practice (Health Maintenance Organizations)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$55,576,509
Expenses
$58,992,928
Assets
$18,375,463
Liabilities
$19,555,314

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Donna Handley (Director): $1,055,572 total reported compensation
  • John Santopietro (SVP, Physician in Chief): $1,051,077 total reported compensation
  • James O'Dea (SVP, Operations): $677,698 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide a continuum of accessible, community-based services for those suffering from psychiatric illness and chemical dependency.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education: Natchaug Hospital provides specialized educational services for children and adolescents whose emotional, behavioral, or psychiatric needs significantly interfere with their ability to succeed in a traditional school setting. Through its Connecticut State Department of Education-approved school programs, Natchaug Hospital integrates academic instruction with therapeutic support to promote educational achievement, emotional growth, and successful reintegration into less restrictive educational environments.The Hospital operates Clinical Day Treatment (CDT) School Programs serving students in kindergarten through grade 12. These programs provide individualized special education and clinical treatment services for students whose social, emotional, or behavioral health challenges prevent them from functioning effectively in their local public schools. Academic instruction is delivered in conjunction with therapeutic interventions, with individualized educational and treatment plans designed to meet each student's unique needs. The primary goal is to help students develop the skills necessary to successfully transition back to their home school districts when deemed appropriate by the Planning and Placement Team (PPT).Natchaug Hospital also operates the Journey House School and other hospital-based education programs, which serve an average of 120 students daily. Educational services are provided to students receiving special education under an Individualized Education Program (IEP), accommodations under Section 504, and regular education services. Students are placed based on comprehensive reviews of educational, psychological, and clinical assessments to ensure appropriate academic programming and support.Students attend the CDT programs through referrals by their local school districts and PPT placements. Some students enter on a diagnostic basis while multidisciplinary psychiatric, psychological, and educational evaluations are completed; others enroll with existing special education plans. Transportation to and from the programs is provided by the referring local education authorities.A typical school day combines core academic instruction with psychoeducational and therapeutic group services led by clinicians, creating a structured and supportive environment that addresses both educational and behavioral health needs. Through these integrated services, Natchaug Hospital helps students improve academic performance, strengthen social and emotional functioning, and progress toward successful participation in school and community life.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 29th 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: -6.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.06; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 92.9% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $51.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.7M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 60 filed related-organization links
  • 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 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.