Texas Institute For Professional Psychology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
852291951
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Plano, TX, USA
Phone
4692771801
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Graduate, Professional Schools (Separate Entities)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$200,000
Expenses
$145,471
Assets
$54,529
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael Leach (Board President/Dean)
  • Mark Matthews (Board Executive Vice President/Director of Clinical Training)

Highest reported compensation

  • Vicki Clear (Provost): $34,231 total reported compensation
  • Michael Leach (Board President/Dean): $33,846 total reported compensation
  • Mark Matthews (Board Executive Vice President/Director of Clinical Training): $33,846 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the Texas Institute of Professional Psychology is to provide and facilitate education leading to a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology (PsyD) that meets or exceeds rules and regulations set out by THECB, SACS and the American Psychology Association (APA), community mental health by the placement of TIPP students with existing clinics and organizations locally and nationally, as part of the required learning experiences, and providing Continuing Education Units (CEUs) Seminars for the general professional public. - The process for becoming the institute laid out in the purpose is a lengthy one. TIPP has made advances toward the purpose of providing CEU Units, through work with consultants.

What it reported doing in 2020

Academic Programs: TIPP has worked tirelessly with consultants to complete all sections of the Texas Workforce Commission application for Certificate of Approval under the heading of Career Colleges and Schools. This involves securing and preparing initial classroom space, writing all curricula and syllabi for TIPP's initial academic offering, the Advanced Psychoanalytic Patient Care Program - which will be a CEU driven program until such time as TIPP may file with the state to be a degree granting institution and then for regional and programmatic accreditation, as laid out in the purpose. All curricula have been reviewed and approved by outside experts, TIPP has secured and built out a Learning Management System for student use, made proper arrangements for collection of tuition, written all institute catalogs and supporting documents, and secured faculty for initial offerings, with the plan of beginning to accept students in Summer 2021. Meanwhile, TIPP has also consulted with experts and begun the initial critical steps to fulfill the long-term mission of regional and APA accreditation. The infrastructure necessary to responsibly admit and educate students has been put into place.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 a large share of total spending goes to programs. 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: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 50
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.4%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,020.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.3%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 70.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.4% of revenue deployed · 76.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $111K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $0 reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.