Psychoanalytic Center of the Carolinas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561258644
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Phone
9194903212
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$904,161
Expenses
$712,262
Assets
$2,128,146
Liabilities
$1,418

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HAROLD KUDLER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • VANN PEARSALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JILL DUNN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • VANN PEARSALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $106,496 total reported compensation
  • DHIPTHI BRUNDAGE (PSYCHOANALYSIS TRAINING PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $17,525 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 promote emotional resilience by understanding the mind through psychoanalytic education, practice and service.

What it reported doing in 2024

Judy byck memorial scholarship - provides scholarships to msw graduate social workers who have never before taken a course at the psychoanalytic center of the carolinas. Thomas j pearsall fellowship - provides fellowships for psychiatry residents and early career psychiatry faculty at residency training programs in nc and sc. Fellowships can be used flexibly for courses, supervision, and treatment through the pcc and its members.psychoanalytic psychotherapy grants - provides grants for students who matriculate in into the psychoanalytic psychotherapy track of the psychoanalytic center of the carolinas (pcc). These funds can be used for any aspect of training in the pcc (course tuition, supervision, and/or personal treatment).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 57.8%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $52.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 21.2%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.99; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.8% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.6% of revenue deployed · 57.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $411K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.