Ridgeview Behavioral Health Services

Legal name: Ridgeview Psychiatric Hospital & Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
620579512
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oak Ridge, TN, US
Phone
(865) 482-1076
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Psychiatric Hospitals

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,612,830
Expenses
$22,082,128
Assets
$29,901,125
Liabilities
$3,919,585

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN BUUCK (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • RENU BHATEJA (CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER): $477,508 total reported compensation
  • OKON ENYENIHI (MD STAFF PSYCH): $322,149 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN BUUCK (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $250,931 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ridgeview—Where people are priority and complex behavioral health needs are met with hope, healing, and recovery.

What it reported doing in 2024

Various services are provided to patients with mental illness, substance abuse, and other disorders in east Tennessee. Inpatient and outpatient services are provided. Ridgeview has programs and services that address the opiod epidemic in the region, in collaboration with other agencies, local branches of government, and health providers. Ridgeview continues to develop and improve its infrastructures to address the gaps in providing quality care and timely access to care. A total of 7,509 clients were served.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

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 some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.5%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 81.3% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $478K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.