Psychedelic Safety Institute

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025 the Psychedelic Safety Institute completed the field research that its current work rests on, published the field's own diagnosis of its problems, and began building the tools to address them.In March, PSI convened the Psychedelic Safety Summit, bringing 140 people together over three days to identify the problems the psychedelic field most needs to solve. The Summit sat inside a wider listening effort of 160 hour-long stakeholder interviews, surveys of underground manufacturers and of psychedelic societies and campus leaders, and roughly 600 conversations with more than 100 organizations.A consistent diagnosis came out of that work. 95% of interviewees pointed to the need for better ongoing relationships with funders so that funding reaches the work, 94% pointed to fragmentation that blocks unified standards and knowledge sharing, and 96% pointed to a need for better data sharing between organizations.PSI published that diagnosis publicly rather than holding it internally. It was the first time the field's problems had been diagnosed at field level and matched against what needed to be built to address them, and it gave PSI and others an evidence base to design against.On that basis PSI began building a set of public tools with field organizations: an ecosystem map that lets organizations describe their own work rather than be described by an intermediary, an interactive theory of change linking the field's differing worldviews to the outcomes and obstacles each one holds, and a substance-by-substance safety resource drawing harm-reduction evidence into one reviewed place. All three were in development and field validation at year end, with public launch aimed for 2026.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 84.2%; rating input score 84
• Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
• Fundraising efficiency: $21.55 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -2.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 113.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings