California Counseling Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942694804
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2015
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2015
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Religion Related N.E.C.
- Affiliation
- Religious (unspecified)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $308,517
- Expenses
- $336,247
- Assets
- $43,416
- Liabilities
- $1,131
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Susana Anderson (President)
- Meg Bloomfield (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Jana Silverman (Clinical Director): $50,905 total reported compensation
- Meg Bloomfield (Executive Director): $47,450 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Mission of the California Counseling Institute is to aid in the healing transformation of individuals, couples and families from all backgrounds and at all levels of income through the integration of psychotherapy and spirituality.
What it reported doing in 2015
CAF Program: CCI therapists see very low-fee clients who qualify to receive assistance from our Client Assistance fund (CAF). CAF clients can pay as little as $0 for a therapy session to $59 per session. In 2015 the standard fee for services was $140 (LCSW, MFT) or $160/session (Phy.D). 21 clients were CAF recipients in 2015. Total number of client hours, or hours that CCI therapists worked with clients in 2015 is 3,354. From that, 608 hours were devoted to CAF clients, which represents 18% of our work. The CAF clients pay minimal payment, and their therapy is subsidized by CCIs annual fundraising. We budgeted $11,000 to our CAF program in 2015. In 2015, we disbursed 12,052.04 for CAF program use. We had a reserve balance of CAF funds going into 2015.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 5
- Sustainability: 20
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.7%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- 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: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -9%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 29.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -11.3% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -18.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -48.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 83.7% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $258K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.