Utah Psychological Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 870417374
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2009–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Salt Lake City, UT, USA
- Phone
- 8014100337
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $147,328
- Expenses
- $148,689
- Assets
- $213,357
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALLISON SMITH PHD (PRESIDENT)
- STEVEN CHEN (PRESIDENT EL)
People named in this filing
- ALLISON SMITH PHD (PRESIDENT)
- DEBORAH ELLIOTT DESORBO PHD (PAST PRESIDE)
- STEVEN CHEN (PRESIDENT EL)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Utah psychological association (upa) seeks to advance psychology as a science and a profession and to promote human welfare by the responsible encouragement of the development of psychology in all its branches in the broadest manner consistent with ethical and scientific standards.
What it reported doing in 2025
The Utah psychological association (upa) is a catalyst for legislative action and a supportive resource for psychologists across Utah. The upa provides a referral service available to all licensed members as well as information about state statutes that govern the practice of psychology. The upa organizes conferences and workshops with national and local presenters on topics of interest to psychologists with substantial discounts to upa members. The upa also provides is members with a newsletter, professional networking opportunities, and a positive media coverage of psychology. There are approximately 300 members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.9%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.43; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 24 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2025
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.