Turtle Creek Valley Mental HealthMental Retardation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 251250510
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023
- Location
- Homestead, PA, USA
- Phone
- 4123510222
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Mental Health Center
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $17,651,519
- Expenses
- $19,446,121
- Assets
- $12,636,113
- Liabilities
- $3,234,450
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Fran Sheedy Bost (Executive Director thru 1/2025)
- Wendy Pardee (Executive Director from 2/2025)
Highest reported compensation
- Rhea Fernandes (Trustee): $625,648 total reported compensation
- Robert C Dunne (Chair, Trustee): $518,940 total reported compensation
- Michael Ernst (Trustee): $433,244 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Providing a continuum of services, care, and support that empowers individuals, families, and communities with behavioral, mental health, substance abuse, and/or developmental issues to sustain their recovery and achieve the important possibilities in their lives.
What it reported doing in 2024
Through its continuum of program offerings, turtle creek valley mental health/mental retardation served the following number of unduplicated individuals during the fiscal year: service coordination unit - 755; mental health services - 836; drug & alcohol services - 27; idd - 37; and children & family services (school based and outpatient) - 960
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 98% 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 67
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 97.8%; rating input score 98
- Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 8th 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: -10.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 97.8% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $626K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $267K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 13 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: Independent voting board scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.