Coaching for Results Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830345948
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Flower Mound, TX, USA
Phone
2144939047
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$196,295
Expenses
$362,391
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANCES SHUSTER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • FRANCES SHUSTER (PRESIDENT): $83,700 total reported compensation
  • KATHY KEE (DIRECTOR): $46,410 total reported compensation
  • KAREN ANDERSON (DIRECTOR): $45,075 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our purpose is to help school leaders achieve extraordinary results, both professionally and personally. We support and foster confident, competent, courageous school leaders who lead their schools to high performance.

What it reported doing in 2015

Although our tax year is january 1 through december 31 each year, our work year matches the schools with which we work, july 1 through june 30 of each year. The data we are sharing is from the most recent school year: july 2014 through june 2015. During that time our non-profit corporation had 8 active coaches, all with successful school leadership backgrounds, working with educators around the united states. All coaches hold professional certified coach (pcc) certification from the international coach federation, seven have associate certified coach (acc) credentials from icf.during the 2014-15 academic year, cfr coached 157 individual clients, offering 1,414 sessions. Our seven year comparison data on coaching clients and number of individual sessions is as follows: eight year comparison data-2008-2015 number of clients/number of coaching sessions 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015number of clients 124 169 186 118 132 149 157coaching sessions 1029 1618 1836 1069 1475 1575 1414besides coaching, our company provides leadership training. Four year seminar data - 2012 2013 2014 2015total seminars/trainings 50 54 63 111number of 4-day seminars 33 39 55 83 subset that are level i courses 32 28 38 61 instructional coaching 5 4 1 3 leadership coaching/high performance 27 24 37 58 coaching strategies for powerful leading 0 0 0 0 subset that are advanced courses 8 11 0 25 level ii-powerful coaching 6 8 16 25 level iii-advanced coaching 2 3 1 0number of customized workshops 17 15 8 28estimated number trained 1000 1350 1575 2075beginning in january 2014 we began to provide scholarship services for coaching and training to leaders unable to pay and desiring the leadership support and knowledge. To that purpose, two new board members were added. Dr. Deborah estes and dr. Carmyn neely, two well renowned and highly successful educators, were added to provide direct oversight to the goal of alignment of the non-profit organization's mission. These non paid board members monitor the funding and distributing of any funds granted.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 30
  • Sustainability: 2
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • 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: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -84.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -37.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $310K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.