Soul Flares Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205780404
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Burlington, VT, USA
Phone
8029236930
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$420,697
Expenses
$464,444
Assets
$315,485
Liabilities
$28,519

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNIE O'SHAUGHNESSY (CO-DIRECTOR): $99,001 total reported compensation
  • LISA BEDINGER (CO-DIRECTOR): $78,380 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Soul flares inc partners with schools and organizations to build communities where everyone can thrive. Using a holistic, relationship- based, restorative approach, soul flares inc provides a broad array of facilitation, professional development, support, and resources to foster desired transformation collaboratively. We model the changes communities seek in how we work as a team with those we serve. We center the wisdom, diversity, and experience of organizational leaders, educators, students, and community members so that all voices can contribute to a shared vision.

What it reported doing in 2024

Whole school restorative implementation: the implementation journey is never linear and never the same for each school. What follows are the parts of the process that we partner with schools on to do this work well. Assets and needs assessment: a whole-school, holistic restorative approach begins with developing a clear picture of where you are. We do that through an assets and needs assessment (ana) that includes interviews of school leadership, a site visit , focus groups, review of existing behavior and culture/climate data and support in interpreting and sharing the results. The resulting report outlines both assets from which to build on and opportunities for improvement and growth. (35-40 hours) restorative team formation and support: because restorative practices is not a program to implement but a philosophy to understand and adopt, it's crucial that the plan to make it part of your school's culture emerges from a collaborative process involving both youth and adults. Our restorative implementation utilizes a specific restorative teaming model that builds the restorative principles into every aspect of team formation and work. We model and support the changes desired in how we work with implementation teams. (three hours monthly for meeting and support) professional learning-whole school and small learning cohorts or lesson plan studies: we've come to understand that the most effective introduction to this work includes whole school trainings followed by monthly learning cohorts where small cohorts revisit learning, share challenges and problem solve together using an improvement science model for data drive change. (recommended initial annual time investment is three half day trainings for whole school and one hour monthly small learning cohorts with two hours of support. Here are some of the main topics to be covered during professional learning: introduction to holistic restorative approaches, universal restorative supports & circling up, in the moment response to harm & restorative communication, planned & targeted response to harm, re- integrative conferences & supports, and consulting and coaching support. Leadership support and coaching: effective implementation is complex and we ask all our schools to commit to several hours of consultation a month to work with leadership and the restorative practices team to strategize, collect and interpret data, and build internal capacity. We strive to make ourselves dispensable and we need time with you to support your growth and development to achieve this.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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 total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.3%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.4%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.3% of revenue deployed · 59.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $276K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $99K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.