Psychoanalytic Institute Of Northern California PINC
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 943112002
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4152884050
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $640,289
- Expenses
- $742,092
- Assets
- $1,272,490
- Liabilities
- $38,617
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Elise Geltman (President)
- Kali Hess (Past President)
Highest reported compensation
- Gail Kaplan (Exec Director): $83,329 total reported compensation
- Larisa Beckwith (Exec Director): $50,192 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 goal of the psychoanalytic training program is to create a lively community in which psychoanalysis may be studied both as an intellectual discipline and as a method of treatment. The program is guided by the assumption that psychoanalysis is an evolving discipline that is strengthened by the ongoing controversies among its various perspectives and by fertilization from other disciplines.
What it reported doing in 2024
PINC is widely recognized within local, national, and international communities as a welcoming and intellectually rigorous community. In an atmosphere that encourages creativity and dialogue, we adhere to the highest standards of psychoanalytic training.Our dominant values of interdisciplinary inclusiveness, community collaboration, and participation in the evolution of psychoanalysis are all reflections of the spirit in which PINC was founded. Since 2004 PINC had been a Provisional Society of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA); PINC became a component society in July of 2009. While meeting IPA standards, PINC maintains its unique identity and continues to provide an innovative vision at the cutting edge of psychoanalysis.
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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 93
- Program expense ratio: 80.5%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $74.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -15.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 80.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $597K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $83K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.