An Act amending the act of December 19, 1990 (P.L.1200, No.202), known as the Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act, further providing for registration of charitable organizations, financi . . .al reports, fees and failure to file.
HB965 amends Pennsylvania’s Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act to raise the financial thresholds that determine when charitable organizations must obtain independent financial statement assurance. Under the bill, organizations receiving annual contributions of $1,000,000 or more would need a full audit by an independent certified public accountant or public accountant. Organizations receiving at least $500,000 but less than $1,000,000 would need either a review or an audit, and those receiving at least $150,000 but less than $500,000 would need a compilation, review, or audit. Charities receiving less than $150,000 in annual contributions would continue to have those services optional.
The bill also specifies that these requirements apply to contributions received in calendar years beginning after the effective date, and the act would take effect immediately. In practical terms, HB965 updates the reporting and compliance framework for charitable organizations by increasing the dollar amounts at which more formal financial oversight is required, while preserving the existing structure of audits, reviews, and compilations under Pennsylvania law.
HB965 would amend Section 5(f) of the Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act, changing the contribution thresholds that trigger audit, review, and compilation requirements for registered charitable organizations. The bill would reduce compliance obligations for some mid-sized charities by moving the thresholds upward, while still requiring independent financial oversight for larger organizations. It would affect charitable organizations operating in Pennsylvania, as well as the accountants who prepare or review their financial reports and the state agencies that oversee charitable solicitation registration and reporting.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a technical regulatory update focused on adjusting financial thresholds rather than changing the underlying charitable solicitation regime. The absence of recorded votes or discussion prevents a reliable assessment of legislative sentiment beyond that neutral characterization.
The main likely point of contention is whether the higher thresholds appropriately balance regulatory oversight with compliance burden. Supporters would likely view the bill as modernizing outdated dollar amounts and reducing unnecessary accounting costs for smaller and mid-sized charities, while critics could argue that raising the thresholds weakens transparency and reduces public accountability for charitable fundraising. Any disagreement would likely center on the tradeoff between administrative relief for nonprofits and the need for independent financial review to protect donors and ensure proper use of charitable funds.