The Lean Lab Inc Lean Lab Education
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 471489862
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- Kansas City, MO, USA
- Phone
- 9136365918
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,415,969
- Expenses
- $2,479,044
- Assets
- $1,116,262
- Liabilities
- $793,019
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SEAN TALAMAS (PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN)
- BRANDI SPATES (VICE PRESIDENT)
- CATHERINE BOODY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- CATHERINE BOODY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $181,793 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We are a nonprofit organization that specializes in codesign research between education technology companies and schools. We match parents, learners and educators with edtech developers to inform, develop, and evaluate the next generation of classroom tools. We study how edtech tools work in real classroom environments and connect promising edtech solutions with resources to accelerate their impact.
What it reported doing in 2024
We are a nonprofit organization that specializes in codesign research between education technology companies and schools. We match parents, learners, and educators with edtech developers to inform, develop, and evaluate the next generation of classroom tools. We study how well edtech tools work in real classroom environments, and connect promising edtech solutions with resources to support accelerating their impact.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 60
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 63.5%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 61.9%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 63.5% of revenue deployed · 61.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.