The Pain Society of the Carolinas
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271883948
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
- Location
- Winstonsalem, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9414023268
- Rating
- 56
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $281,080
- Expenses
- $247,433
- Assets
- $560,495
- Liabilities
- $1,686
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BROOKE CHIDGEY MD (PRESIDENT)
- RYAN NOBLES MD (PRESIDENT-EL)
People named in this filing
- ROBERT WILSON II MD (PAST PRESIDE)
- MICHAEL TODD WARRICK (PAST PRESIDE)
- RICHARD RAUCK MD (DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The pain society of the carolinas was created to provide a forum for healthcare professionals with a medical interest and/or clinical practice in acute and chronic pain management. The organization conducts annual scientific educational sessions, and its program activities include facilitating professional discussion, debate, and consensus, and promoting pain managment quality of life treatments, techniques, and care.
What it reported doing in 2024
Convened annual meeting in december 2024 offering scientific sessions to health professionals in north and South Carolina and other states with the objective to identify analyze and apply treatment options for acute and chronic pain.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 86% 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
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 48
- Transparency & Controls: 54
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50.7%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 58.9%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.27; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 50.7% of revenue deployed · 58.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $146K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 51/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.