Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
381614481
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026756956
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$742,994
Expenses
$1,002,778
Assets
$7,050,738
Liabilities
$32,172

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HEATHER BULLOCK (PRESIDENT (FROM 9/1))
  • KIMBERLY KAHN (PRESIDENT ELECT (FROM 9/1))
  • PATRICK GRZANKA (PAST PRESIDENT (FROM 9/1))
  • ABIGAIL STEWART (PAST PRESIDENT (UNTIL 8/31))
  • ANILA BALKISSOON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANILA BALKISSOON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $164,905 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To generate, disseminate, and apply social science knowledge to address the problems of society.

What it reported doing in 2024

The educational program of the society includes publication of three peer-reviewed scholarly journals (journal of social issues; analysis of social issues and public policy; and social issues and policy review) and books; sponsorship of conferences, seminars, workshops, and fellowships to promote training and sharing of scientific data related to social issues and empirically sound interventions; and encouragement of social psychological research through provision of competitive small grants and awards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 80% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 52
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.4%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 59.5%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st 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: 37.3%; rating input score 37; 27th 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; 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -35%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.03; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.4%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.4% of revenue deployed · 59.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $597K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.