TCSPP Counseling Centers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952556403
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2136157200
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,718
Expenses
$236,618
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michele Nealon (Institutional President/Trustee)
  • Michael Horowitz (Corporate President)

People named in this filing

  • Michele Nealon (Institutional President/Trustee)
  • Michael Falotico (Chairperson)
  • Donald Packham (Trustee)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

TCSPP Counseling Centers provides counseling services to the public.

What it reported doing in 2019

For more than 45 years, TCSPP Counseling Centers (in Irvine and Westwood, California) have provided caring, confidential, and affordable psychological services to individuals and families in out communities. TCSPP Counseling Centers provide an unrivaled range of high-quality therapeutic and educational programs to help people overcome challenges and achieve their highest potentials.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -646%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -10.4% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -44.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $237K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.