Society for the Preservation of Physician Assistant History Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030429253
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Johns Creek, GA, USA
Phone
6784178682
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$536,100
Expenses
$595,696
Assets
$410,408
Liabilities
$81,407

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Robert S Smith (Immediate Past-President)
  • Richard C Vause Jr (President)
  • William Kohlepp (PRESIDENT ELECT)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dawn Morton-Rias (EX-OFFICIO TRUSTEE): $736,106 total reported compensation
  • Lori Konopka-Sauer (Managing Director): $184,409 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To develop educational materials for PAs, PA students and the public, and to annually update the Society for the Preservation of Physician Assistant History's ("The PAHX's") illustrated website with new recorded interviews, biographies, and PA-related exhibits and features. The staff, Trustees, and Historians participate in presentations to PA students and PA faculty during the year.

What it reported doing in 2025

The pa history society ("pahx") maintains a collection of archival documents, reference materials, audio & video clips, photographs, and museum items that span the 60-year history of the pa profession. The society shares these materials, via its illustrated website, and develops additional educational resources used to teach the history of pa profession. Each year the society creates additional educational resources from its growing collection.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.8%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 42.2%; rating input score 42
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.8% of revenue deployed · 42.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $251K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $736K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.