The Maple Counseling Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952753118
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3102719999
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,340,917
Expenses
$3,613,983
Assets
$8,301,104
Liabilities
$1,932,347

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

Leadership & pay

41 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VARINA BLEIL MED (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • VARINA BLEIL MED (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $191,890 total reported compensation
  • MARIANNE CALLAHAN LMFT (CHIEF CLINICAL OFFICER): $166,079 total reported compensation
  • TORI FISK TUCKER (CHIEF FINANCIAL & OPERATIN): $152,936 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The maple counseling center (maple) provides low-cost comprehensive mental health services to individuals of all ages, couples, and families, and training of graduates and postgraduates for licensure in the mental health field. Maple's diverse client population comes from communities primarily within the greater los angeles area and throughout all of California.

What it reported doing in 2025

The maple counseling center (maple) provides low-cost comprehensive mental health services to individuals of all ages, couples, and families, and training of graduates and postgraduates for licensure in the mental health field. Maple's diverse client population comes from communities primarily within the greater los angeles area and throughout all of California.maple relies primarily on support from government, foundations, corporations, and individuals to supplement its free or reduced client fees, which constitutes 17% of annual revenue. Client fees are on a sliding scale and determined based on the client's annual income.maple's programs serve a primarily low-income clientele. Using hud guidelines for los angeles county, 70% of maple's clients are considered low-income, with 56% considered extremely low-income income with annual wages of less than $30,000. The average fee per session in 2025 was $27. Maple services support the mental well-being of individuals of all ages - from toddlers through the advanced elderly - and include counseling for adults, couples, older adults, teens, children, and families. Maple also offers several school-based programs from pre-k to 12th grade, including individual counseling, group therapy, parent and teacher/staff education, as well as social-emotional learning for tk-5th grade schools via the longstanding community circle program. Maple also offers an innovative program through its briskin - wilder welcome center that provides free support to anyone needing mental health care within los angeles county to assess their needs and get connected with appropriate services within one's financial means, providing follow-up case management support to ensure everyone leaves maple successfully on the road to wellbeing.maple's dual mission-to serve clients and to train clinicians-allows us to leverage low-cost clinical time of trainees and associates to provide high quality services that are accessible on a sliding fee scale. In 2025, maple served 6,477 individuals, including 1,490 therapy client through its clinic and via telehealth, 1,527 served through the briskin/wilder welcome center, and 2,747 youth and parents through school-based and art therapy programs. 53% of all individuals served received free support. Maple also provided training to 152 masters-level trainees, supervised by licensed clinical staff and supported by a broader volunteer network of 403 individuals. Therapy services were provided by 152 graduate students in marriage and family therapy, social work, and clinical counseling, supervised by highly qualified licensed clinical staff and a volunteer network of 53 licensed therapists.therapy services are provided by graduate and post-graduate students in marriage and family therapy, social work, and clinical counseling who are working toward licensure in the state of California. These trainees and associates are supervised by highly qualified licensed clinical staff, as well as an additional 50 offsite volunteer licensed clinical therapists.

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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 97.1%; rating input score 97; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.3; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.3%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.9% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 34 of 35 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 41 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.