Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363733179
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Schaumburg, IL, USA
- Phone
- 8479441325
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,092,061
- Expenses
- $1,946,112
- Assets
- $4,538,338
- Liabilities
- $586,027
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KYLE WALKER (FORMER PRESIDENT)
- TRENTON LANDON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- PAM SHLEMON (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- PAM SHLEMON (PRESIDENT/CEO): $189,762 total reported compensation
- SUSAN BROWN ZAHN (DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING): $127,208 total reported compensation
- MICHELLE GROSS (DIRECTOR OF CERTIFICATION AND CREDENTIALING SERVICES): $126,576 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Dedicated to the excellence of rehabilitation counseling and services for individuals with disabilities by setting the national standard in certification, providing leadership, education, advocacy, and supporting research.
What it reported doing in 2024
The commission on rehabilitation counselor certification (crcc) sets the standard for quality rehabilitation counseling services through its internationally recognized certification program. The certified rehabilitation counselor (crc) designation indicates a higher level of specialized education and training, a thorough understanding of key competency standards based on current practices in the field, adherence to the code of professional ethics for rehabilitation counselors, and an ongoing commitment to continuing education. During the tax year there were 956 individuals who sat for the exam and 2,006 certification renewals.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 93
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- 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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.33; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $603K reported
- Consistency: 14 of 32 current checks pass · 18 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesInvstMgmntFees column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.