International Personnel Assessment Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 264175869
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Madison, AL, USA
- Phone
- 0000000000
- Rating
- 39
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $94,970
- Expenses
- $79,750
- Assets
- $134,149
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jill May (IPAC President)
- Ernest Hoffman (IPAC President Elect)
People named in this filing
- Jill May (IPAC President)
- Martinique Alber (IPAC Financial Officer)
- Ernest Hoffman (IPAC President Elect)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
IPAC fosters and advances an inclusive talent assessment community by promoting evidence-based practices quality research and networking opportunities This community includes I-O and HR professionals educators researchers students and assessment providers Our goal is to provide our community with the tools expertise and mentorship to support fair data-driven and defensible employment decisions
What it reported doing in 2025
Annual conference facility by IPAC
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0.1%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0.1%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.68; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -16.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0.1% of revenue deployed · 0.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $69 in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.