Southern California Psychiatric Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952083669
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Palm Desert, CA, USA
Phone
3108153650
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$394,603
Expenses
$321,368
Assets
$705,991
Liabilities
$101

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA HALPIN (Vice President)
  • PATRICK KELLY (President)
  • MINDI THELEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • LAURA HALPIN (Vice President)
  • LLOYD LEE (Director)
  • HAIG GOENJIAN (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To maintain, advance and improve the professional standards of practice of the medical specialty of psychiatry.

What it reported doing in 2025

Regions, committees and the council meet each month to develop new policies and/or improve existing programs. The newsletter committee edited 11 issues of the newsletter. The fellowship and awards committee bestowed awards to several local psychiatrists and programs working towards bettering the lives of people with mental illness. The disaster relief committee participates on the California disaster mental health coaliton. During 2025, for black history month the diversity and culture committee presented, a meeting on the intersection of dei and psychiatry and published a special edition of the newsletter. The private practice committee presented several educational events for the membership. The access to care committee, developed a survey to be sent to nami members (national alliance on mental illness) to determine barriers to access and develop effective advocacy. A new committee was formed, the ai task force, to look at the intersection of ai and psychiatry and to look at developing possible legislation for safeguards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 85% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.6%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.2; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 31 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.