Charles Lea Center

Legal name: The Charles Lea Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
576036895
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2023
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Spartanburg, SC, USA
Phone
(864) 585-0322
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rehabilitative Medical Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,609,818
Expenses
$36,132,547
Assets
$14,941,395
Liabilities
$2,864,672

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

37 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER KINDALL (DIRECTOR, PRESIDENT)
  • GERALD BERNARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LOIS DURRAH (VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNIT)
  • SHANNON CHILDRESS (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF N)

Highest reported compensation

  • GERALD BERNARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $228,569 total reported compensation
  • FAITH BURKE (NURSE PRACTIONER): $139,349 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT DECKER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $134,382 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We are committed to empowering and supporting individuals with disabilities to live active, involved and meaningful lives.

What it reported doing in 2023

The center's other programs include serving as a respite fiscal agent and a hud manager. The center's employees provide accounting and payroll services to assist the state of South Carolina with processing respite payroll. The center manages eight hud corporations. The center also performs consulting services to other organizations providing services to those with special needs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 89% 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.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 85% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $31.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $229K · 37 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $915K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.