Siyan Clinical Research
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 814173947
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Santa Rosa, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7076968045
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,278,989
- Expenses
- $2,211,157
- Assets
- $441,825
- Liabilities
- $251,927
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- A SHAH (President)
Highest reported compensation
- A SHAH (President): $223,517 total reported compensation
- M REEL (PROJ DIR-CCBHC): $203,600 total reported compensation
- H Laines (Secretary): $139,245 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Conducting clinical research, educating and creating awareness about psychiatric disorders
What it reported doing in 2025
Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) - this is funded by samhsa for SCR to plan and implement becoming CCBHC certified. The objective is for this program to improve behavioral health care for individuals across the lifespan by supporting providers to operate in accordance with the Federal CCBHC criteria and thereby increase access to and availability of high-quality services that are responsive to the needs of the community; support recovery from mental health and substance use disorder challenges via comprehensive community-based mental and substance use disorder treatment and support.During 2025, SCR served 295 patients within the CCBHC model.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 23
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85.5%; rating input score 86
- Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $80.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th 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: 3%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 27.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 85.5% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $224K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.