Coaching is not a clinical service and is not usually covered by health insurance in most cases. That said, some employers offer employee assistance or professional development benefits that can cover coaching costs, and these programs are often not widely advertised. It's worth checking with your HR department. Sessions can also be framed as work performance or peak-performance coaching for that purpose. Feel free to ask about this on your consultation call.

Sessions are conversational and practical. We typically start with a quick check-in on the week, review what worked, the progress on whatever we're working on, problem-solve anything that got in the way, and set clear priorities for the week ahead. There's not a rigid formula but there's always a focus and always a takeaway. After each session you will receive a session summary with goals for the week.

Yes, within reason. Brief check-ins by text or phone are not uncommon, particularly when we're working on time-based routines or habits that benefit from a little real-time accountability. For more significant support needs, some clients choose to book more than one session per week.

It varies considerably depending on the person and their goals but making significant, lasting life changes is not usually a quick fix. Some clients make significant progress in a few months. Others find ongoing coaching valuable for a year or more. The honest answer is that we move at the pace that serves you best. The goal from day one is to get you to a place where you no longer need us or only periodically.

A little of both, by design. There's a general progression that tends to work well and we follow it as a loose framework. But everyone's EF profile is different and the process always adapts to the person. What works for a college student managing time blindness looks very different from what works for a 45-year-old executive managing competing priorities. The structure is there to serve you, not the other way around.

My work is most effective with people who are genuinely committed to the process, which tends to start around age 16 or 17 for most young people. I don't have a hard age cutoff but I do look for a real baseline of self-awareness and willingness to engage. Younger kids generally need a different kind of support, one that involves parents more directly and uses approaches specific to that age group. If that's what you're looking for, reach out by email or phone with a brief description of your situation and I'll do my best to point you in the right direction.

No. Many of my clients have never been diagnosed and many don't have ADHD at all. An ADHD diagnosis is not particularly important unless you're seeking school/ work accommodations or medication. What matters to us is whether executive function challenges are creating real friction in your life. The assessment will give us a clearer picture of that regardless of whether you have a diagnosis.

Therapy tends to be backwards facing, exploring your history to make sense of the present. Coaching is forward facing, working on what's happening now to create change going forward. Coaching is about taking action. I'm a strong advocate for therapy and the two work well alongside each other. But if your primary goal is to function better, build better systems, and break patterns that keep holding you back, coaching is the more direct path.

Coaching works best when someone is willing to be honest about what isn't working and committed to doing something different. If you change nothing, nothing will change. You don't need to have it all figured out before you start. That's what the process is for.

The difference is depth and specificity. General coaching tends to focus on broad goals and generic motivation systems. What we do is grounded in a detailed understanding of executive function, how it breaks down differently in different people, and how to build systems around those specific patterns. The neuroscience background, the EF assessment, and nearly a decade of working with ADHD and EF challenges means we're not guessing. We're not applying generic productivity frameworks to problems they weren't built to solve.