Coalition for Osteopathic Excellence

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850402214
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Las Cruces, NM, USA
Phone
5756742281
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,115,227
Expenses
$1,175,712
Assets
$7,162,987
Liabilities
$2,219,489

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHAWN BASSHAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • WILLIAM T BAKER DO (PRESIDENT)
  • TANNY BERG (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SHAWN BASSHAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • WILLIAM T BAKER DO (PRESIDENT)
  • TANNY BERG (VICE PRESIDENT)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve healthcare through the financial support of medical education and health-related endeavors for students at the burrell college of osteopathic medicine including providing avenues for related research and development. (continued on schedule o)the primary activity is to solicit donations for scholarships and general support benefitting students at the burrell college of osteopathic medicine.

What it reported doing in 2025

The earnings and principal of the corporation, as deemed appropriate by the board of directors, shall be administered for scholarships and support of students attending burrell college of osteopathic medicine in las cruces, New Mexico.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.6%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 44.4%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.09; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.6% of revenue deployed · 84.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $991K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.