Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 263018654
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Bloomington, IN, USA
- Phone
- 4793018008
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Science and Technology N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $303,240
- Expenses
- $194,069
- Assets
- $1,338,955
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOANNA DAVILA (PRESIDENT)
- JOSEPH E STEINMETZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JOSEPH E STEINMETZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $130,000 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 psychological clinical science accreditation system (pcsas) is an independent, nonprofit organization whose aim is to provide rigorous, objective, and empirically based accreditation of ph.d. Programs in clinical psychology that adhere to a clinical science training model -- one that increases the quality and quantity of clinical scientists contributing to all aspects of public health and extends the science base for mental health care.
What it reported doing in 2024
To date pcsas has accredited 48 programs in the united states and canada, with many others in various stages of the application process. These programs are among the most highly regarded in the field. For example, all 20 of the us news & world report's 20 top-ranked clinical psychology programs are pcsas accredited. Thirty-nine pcsas programs in the u.s. Are ranked in the top 50 (u.s. News only ranks u.s. Programs). And all 48 pcsas programs are ranked highly by the national academy of sciences; have graduates who score higher on average than those non-pcsas programs on state licensing exams; have students who "match" at a higher rate in internship placements; and are distinguished by the publication records of pcsas faculty.
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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 53
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.5%; rating input score 48
- Program expense ratio: 69.5%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st 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: 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 36%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.9; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 67%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 48.5% of revenue deployed · 69.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $135K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.