Pennsylvania Psychological Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232626383
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Harrisburg, PA, United States
Phone
7172323817
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$69,607
Expenses
$59,805
Assets
$534,704
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAMETTA SIMMONS PSYDD (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANN MARIE FRAKES (Executive Dir.): $171,930 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Pennsylvania Psychological Association is governed by the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, and the General Assembly. It shall be their aggregate responsibility to establish policy, make decisions, and implement action consistent with the philosophy and objectives of PPA. Founded in 1933, PPA is the third largest state association affiliated with the American Psychological Association. The purpose of PPA is to advance psychology in Pennsylvania as a means of promoting human welfare.

What it reported doing in 2024

(a) the development and presentation of educational or scientific exhibits in psychology for the benefit of the general public.(b) the development or sponsorship, or both, of panels, workshops, seminars, and other educational activities in psychology for the benefit of psychologists and the general public.(c) the granting of scholarships, awards, stipends, or other forms of financial assistance to students, teachers, or researchers in psychology at secondary schools or institutions of higher education on the basis of innovative or meritorious achievement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 66.9%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.94; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.7% of revenue deployed · 66.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $40K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.